%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO512^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Sep 30 08:43:20 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.33s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 5 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 13 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 44 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 0 &; 35 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 3 ( 3 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 5 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 0 ^; 11 !; 2 ?; 13 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
eps: ( $i > $o ) > $i ).
thf(decl_24,type,
r: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk1_0: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
esk2_1: $i > $i ).
thf(claim,conjecture,
! [X2: $i] : ( r @ X2 @ ( eps @ ( r @ X2 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gMtEdHK73A/E---3.1_1335115.p',claim) ).
thf(epschoice,axiom,
! [X1: $i > $o] :
( ? [X2: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 )
=> ( X1 @ ( eps @ X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gMtEdHK73A/E---3.1_1335115.p',epschoice) ).
thf(rtotal,axiom,
! [X2: $i] :
? [X3: $i] : ( r @ X2 @ X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gMtEdHK73A/E---3.1_1335115.p',rtotal) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2: $i] : ( r @ X2 @ ( eps @ ( r @ X2 ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[claim]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( r @ esk1_0 @ ( eps @ ( r @ esk1_0 ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
! [X12: $i > $o,X13: $i] :
( ~ ( X12 @ X13 )
| ( X12 @ ( eps @ X12 ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[epschoice])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ( r @ esk1_0 @ ( eps @ ( r @ esk1_0 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X1: $i > $o,X2: $i] :
( ( X1 @ ( eps @ X1 ) )
| ~ ( X1 @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
! [X10: $i] : ( r @ X10 @ ( esk2_1 @ X10 ) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[rtotal])]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i] :
~ ( r @ esk1_0 @ X2 ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(choice_inst,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
! [X2: $i] : ( r @ X2 @ ( esk2_1 @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYO512^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.22 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.22 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.22 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.22 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.22 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.22 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.23 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.23 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:12:49 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.23 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.23 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.28 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.30 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gMtEdHK73A/E---3.1_1335115.p
% 0.25/0.32 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.32 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.32 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting full_lambda_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % new_bool_9 with pid 1335129 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.32 % Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.25/0.32 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.32 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.32 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.32 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBC
% 0.25/0.32 % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.25/0.32 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.32 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.32 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1335134 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.32 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.33 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.33 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBC
% 0.25/0.33 % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.33 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.33 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.33 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.25/0.33 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % Processed clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...remaining for further processing : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.33 % ...number of literals in the above : 4
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Termbank termtop insertions : 228
% 0.25/0.33 % Search garbage collected termcells : 56
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.33 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.33 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.33 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------