%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Etableau---0.67
% Problem  : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s

% Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 600s
% DateTime : Thu Jul 21 06:15:13 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.21s 0.39s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    8 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   42 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   12 (   5 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   41 (   7   ~;   4   |;  22   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   8  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   15 (   6 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   4 sgn   6   !;   4   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2] :
    ? [X3,X4] :
      ( ( ( q(X3)
         => p(X3,X1) )
        & q(X1)
        & q(X2)
        & ( r(X4)
         => p(X2,X4) )
        & r(X1)
        & r(X2)
        & ( s(X1)
         => p(X3,X4) )
        & s(X1) )
     => p(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2] :
      ? [X3,X4] :
        ( ( ( q(X3)
           => p(X3,X1) )
          & q(X1)
          & q(X2)
          & ( r(X4)
           => p(X2,X4) )
          & r(X1)
          & r(X2)
          & ( s(X1)
           => p(X3,X4) )
          & s(X1) )
       => p(X1,X2) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X7,X8] :
      ( ( ~ q(X7)
        | p(X7,esk1_0) )
      & q(esk1_0)
      & q(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ r(X8)
        | p(esk2_0,X8) )
      & r(esk1_0)
      & r(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ s(esk1_0)
        | p(X7,X8) )
      & s(esk1_0)
      & ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( p(X1,X2)
    | ~ s(esk1_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    p(X1,X2),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.13  % Problem  : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.08/0.14  % Command  : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 01:32:30 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.21/0.39  # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.39  # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.21/0.39  # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.21/0.39  #
% 0.21/0.39  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.39  
% 0.21/0.39  # Proof found!
% 0.21/0.39  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.39  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.39  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------