0.08/0.13	% Problem    : theBenchmark.p : TPTP v0.0.0. Released v0.0.0.
0.08/0.14	% Command    : run_E %s %d THM
0.14/0.35	% Computer : n021.cluster.edu
0.14/0.35	% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
0.14/0.35	% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
0.14/0.35	% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
0.14/0.35	% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
0.14/0.35	% CPULimit   : 960
0.14/0.35	% WCLimit    : 120
0.14/0.35	% DateTime   : Tue Aug  9 02:59:20 EDT 2022
0.14/0.35	% CPUTime    : 
0.21/0.49	Running higher-order on 8 cores theorem proving
0.21/0.49	Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=120 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
0.21/0.49	# Version: 3.0pre003-ho
0.21/0.50	# Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
0.21/0.50	# Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 120 seconds (960 total)
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho12 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_bool_9 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho1 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho4 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho2 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting full_lambda_10 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_ho_8 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# ehoh_best2_full_lfho with pid 14282 completed with status 0
0.21/0.50	# Result found by ehoh_best2_full_lfho
0.21/0.50	# Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
0.21/0.50	# Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 120 seconds (960 total)
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho12 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_bool_9 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho1 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho4 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho2 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# No SInE strategy applied
0.21/0.50	# Search class: HHUNF-FFSF21-SSSFFMBN
0.21/0.50	# partial match(1): HGUNF-FFSF21-SSSFFMBN
0.21/0.50	# Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 120 seconds (120 total)
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_ho_10 with 65s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# new_ho_10 with pid 14291 completed with status 9
0.21/0.50	# Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 13s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# ehoh_best2_full_lfho with pid 14297 completed with status 0
0.21/0.50	# Result found by ehoh_best2_full_lfho
0.21/0.50	# Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
0.21/0.50	# Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 120 seconds (960 total)
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho12 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_bool_9 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho1 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho4 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting post_as_ho2 with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 120s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# No SInE strategy applied
0.21/0.50	# Search class: HHUNF-FFSF21-SSSFFMBN
0.21/0.50	# partial match(1): HGUNF-FFSF21-SSSFFMBN
0.21/0.50	# Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 120 seconds (120 total)
0.21/0.50	# Starting new_ho_10 with 65s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# new_ho_10 with pid 14291 completed with status 9
0.21/0.50	# Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 13s (1) cores
0.21/0.50	# Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
0.21/0.50	
0.21/0.50	# Proof found!
0.21/0.50	# SZS status Theorem
0.21/0.50	# SZS output start CNFRefutation
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_22, type, c_starc: c > c > c).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_23, type, c_starb: b > b > b).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_24, type, c_stara: a > a > a).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_25, type, esk1_0: a > b).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_26, type, esk2_0: a > c).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_27, type, esk3_0: b > c).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_28, type, esk4_1: b > a).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_29, type, esk5_0: b).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_30, type, esk6_0: b).
0.21/0.50	thf(decl_31, type, epred1_0: c > $o).
0.21/0.50	thf(cTHM270_INST, conjecture, ![X1:a > b, X2:a > c, X3:b > c]:((![X4:b, X5:b, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (X3 @ (c_starb @ X4 @ X5)))=>(X6 @ (c_starc @ (X3 @ X4) @ (X3 @ X5)))))<=(((![X7:a, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (X2 @ X7))<=(X6 @ (X3 @ (X1 @ X7)))))&![X8:a, X9:a, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (c_starc @ (X2 @ X8) @ (X2 @ X9)))<=(X6 @ (X2 @ (c_stara @ X8 @ X9))))))&![X10:a, X11:a, X12:b > $o]:(((X12 @ (c_starb @ (X1 @ X10) @ (X1 @ X11)))<=(X12 @ (X1 @ (c_stara @ X10 @ X11))))))&![X5:b]:(?[X13:a]:(![X14:b > $o]:(((X14 @ (X1 @ X13))=>(X14 @ X5)))))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', cTHM270_INST)).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~(![X1:a > b, X2:a > c, X3:b > c]:(((((![X7:a, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (X3 @ (X1 @ X7)))=>(X6 @ (X2 @ X7))))&![X8:a, X9:a, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (X2 @ (c_stara @ X8 @ X9)))=>(X6 @ (c_starc @ (X2 @ X8) @ (X2 @ X9))))))&![X10:a, X11:a, X12:b > $o]:(((X12 @ (X1 @ (c_stara @ X10 @ X11)))=>(X12 @ (c_starb @ (X1 @ X10) @ (X1 @ X11))))))&![X5:b]:(?[X13:a]:(![X14:b > $o]:(((X14 @ (X1 @ X13))=>(X14 @ X5))))))=>![X4:b, X5:b, X6:c > $o]:(((X6 @ (X3 @ (c_starb @ X4 @ X5)))=>(X6 @ (c_starc @ (X3 @ X4) @ (X3 @ X5)))))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM270_INST])])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ![X35:a, X36:c > $o, X37:a, X38:a, X39:c > $o, X40:a, X41:a, X42:b > $o, X43:b, X45:b > $o]:((((((~(X36 @ (esk3_0 @ (esk1_0 @ X35)))|(X36 @ (esk2_0 @ X35)))&(~(X39 @ (esk2_0 @ (c_stara @ X37 @ X38)))|(X39 @ (c_starc @ (esk2_0 @ X37) @ (esk2_0 @ X38)))))&(~(X42 @ (esk1_0 @ (c_stara @ X40 @ X41)))|(X42 @ (c_starb @ (esk1_0 @ X40) @ (esk1_0 @ X41)))))&(~(X45 @ (esk1_0 @ (esk4_1 @ X43)))|(X45 @ X43)))&((epred1_0 @ (esk3_0 @ (c_starb @ esk5_0 @ esk6_0)))&~(epred1_0 @ (c_starc @ (esk3_0 @ esk5_0) @ (esk3_0 @ esk6_0)))))), inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ![X6:c > $o, X7:a]:(((X6 @ (esk2_0 @ X7))|~((X6 @ (esk3_0 @ (esk1_0 @ X7)))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ![X12:b > $o, X4:b]:(((X12 @ X4)|~((X12 @ (esk1_0 @ (esk4_1 @ X4)))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X12:b > $o, X8:a]:(((X12 @ (c_starb @ (esk1_0 @ X7) @ (esk1_0 @ X8)))|~((X12 @ (esk1_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ X8)))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ![X6:c > $o, X7:a, X8:a]:(((X6 @ (c_starc @ (esk2_0 @ X7) @ (esk2_0 @ X8)))|~((X6 @ (esk2_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ X8)))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a]:(((esk3_0 @ (esk1_0 @ X7))=(esk2_0 @ X7))), inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]), c_0_3])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, ![X4:b]:(((esk1_0 @ (esk4_1 @ X4))=(X4))), inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]), c_0_4])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X8:a]:(((c_starb @ (esk1_0 @ X7) @ (esk1_0 @ X8))=(esk1_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ X8)))), inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]), c_0_5])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X8:a]:(((c_starc @ (esk2_0 @ X7) @ (esk2_0 @ X8))=(esk2_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ X8)))), inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]), c_0_6])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, ![X4:b]:(((esk2_0 @ (esk4_1 @ X4))=(esk3_0 @ X4))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7, c_0_8])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X4:b]:(((esk1_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ (esk4_1 @ X4)))=(c_starb @ (esk1_0 @ X7) @ X4))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9, c_0_8])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X4:b]:(((esk2_0 @ (c_stara @ X7 @ (esk4_1 @ X4)))=(c_starc @ (esk2_0 @ X7) @ (esk3_0 @ X4)))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10, c_0_11])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_14, negated_conjecture, ![X7:a, X4:b]:(((c_starc @ (esk2_0 @ X7) @ (esk3_0 @ X4))=(esk3_0 @ (c_starb @ (esk1_0 @ X7) @ X4)))), inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7, c_0_12]), c_0_13])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_15, negated_conjecture, ~((epred1_0 @ (c_starc @ (esk3_0 @ esk5_0) @ (esk3_0 @ esk6_0)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_16, negated_conjecture, ![X4:b, X5:b]:(((c_starc @ (esk3_0 @ X4) @ (esk3_0 @ X5))=(esk3_0 @ (c_starb @ X4 @ X5)))), inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14, c_0_11]), c_0_8])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_17, negated_conjecture, (epred1_0 @ (esk3_0 @ (c_starb @ esk5_0 @ esk6_0))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
0.21/0.50	thf(c_0_18, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15, c_0_16]), c_0_17])]), ['proof']).
0.21/0.50	# SZS output end CNFRefutation
0.21/0.50	# Parsed axioms                        : 7
0.21/0.50	# Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
0.21/0.50	# Initial clauses                      : 12
0.21/0.50	# Removed in clause preprocessing      : 6
0.21/0.50	# Initial clauses in saturation        : 6
0.21/0.50	# Processed clauses                    : 28
0.21/0.50	# ...of these trivial                  : 11
0.21/0.50	# ...subsumed                          : 0
0.21/0.50	# ...remaining for further processing  : 17
0.21/0.50	# Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
0.21/0.50	# Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
0.21/0.50	# Backward-subsumed                    : 0
0.21/0.50	# Backward-rewritten                   : 6
0.21/0.50	# Generated clauses                    : 55
0.21/0.50	# ...of the previous two non-redundant : 43
0.21/0.50	# ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
0.21/0.50	# Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
0.21/0.50	# Paramodulations                      : 23
0.21/0.50	# Factorizations                       : 0
0.21/0.50	# NegExts                              : 0
0.21/0.50	# Equation resolutions                 : 0
0.21/0.50	# Propositional unsat checks           : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional check models        : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional clauses             : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
0.21/0.50	#    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
0.21/0.50	#    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
0.21/0.50	#    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
0.21/0.50	#    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
0.21/0.50	# Current number of processed clauses  : 11
0.21/0.50	#    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 11
0.21/0.50	#    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
0.21/0.50	#    Negative unit clauses             : 0
0.21/0.50	#    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
0.21/0.50	# Current number of unprocessed clauses: 20
0.21/0.50	# ...number of literals in the above   : 29
0.21/0.50	# Current number of archived formulas  : 0
0.21/0.50	# Current number of archived clauses   : 6
0.21/0.50	# Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
0.21/0.50	# Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
0.21/0.50	# Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
0.21/0.50	# Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
0.21/0.50	# Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
0.21/0.50	# BW rewrite match attempts            : 6
0.21/0.50	# BW rewrite match successes           : 6
0.21/0.50	# Condensation attempts                : 0
0.21/0.50	# Condensation successes               : 0
0.21/0.50	# Termbank termtop insertions          : 1788
0.21/0.50	
0.21/0.50	# -------------------------------------------------
0.21/0.50	# User time                : 0.005 s
0.21/0.50	# System time              : 0.005 s
0.21/0.50	# Total time               : 0.010 s
0.21/0.50	# Maximum resident set size: 1868 pages
0.21/0.50	
0.21/0.50	# -------------------------------------------------
0.21/0.50	# User time                : 0.006 s
0.21/0.50	# System time              : 0.008 s
0.21/0.50	# Total time               : 0.014 s
0.21/0.50	# Maximum resident set size: 1744 pages
0.21/0.50	EOF