%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT272-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 : Thu Sep 24 01:04:37 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 7.15s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 7.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Tarski_O_91_124_AisLub_AS1_Acl_AL1_59_Ay1_A_58_AS1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_A_Iy1_M_AL1_J_A_58_Ar_A_61_61_ATrue_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(X3,X1,t_a)
| ~ c_Tarski_OisLub(X1,v_cl,X2,t_a)
| c_in(c_Pair(X3,X2,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT006-2.ax',cls_Tarski_O_91_124_AisLub_AS1_Acl_AL1_59_Ay1_A_58_AS1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_A_Iy1_M_AL1_J_A_58_Ar_A_61_61_ATrue_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_7,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_7) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_4,negated_conjecture,
c_Tarski_OisLub(v_S,v_cl,v_L,t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_4) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_6,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_x,v_S,t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_6) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_in(X3,X1,t_a)
| ~ c_Tarski_OisLub(X1,v_cl,X2,t_a)
| c_in(c_Pair(X3,X2,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Tarski_O_91_124_AisLub_AS1_Acl_AL1_59_Ay1_A_58_AS1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_A_Iy1_M_AL1_J_A_58_Ar_A_61_61_ATrue_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_in(X3,X1,t_a)
| ~ c_Tarski_OisLub(X1,v_cl,X2,t_a)
| c_in(c_Pair(X3,X2,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
c_Tarski_OisLub(v_S,v_cl,v_L,t_a),
cls_conjecture_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(X1,v_S,t_a)
| c_in(c_Pair(X1,v_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_x,v_S,t_a),
cls_conjecture_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LAT272-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:29:22 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 7.15/1.40 % Version: 3.5.1
% 7.15/1.40 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 7.15/1.40 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1020462 completed with status 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 7.15/1.40 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 7.15/1.40 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 7.15/1.40 % No SInE strategy applied
% 7.15/1.40 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 7.15/1.40 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting U----_206e_00_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting SAT001_CA_MinMin_p005000_rr with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 1020473 completed with status 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 7.15/1.40 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 7.15/1.40 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 7.15/1.40 % No SInE strategy applied
% 7.15/1.40 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 7.15/1.40 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting U----_206e_00_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting SAT001_CA_MinMin_p005000_rr with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 7.15/1.40 % Preprocessing time : 0.031 s
% 7.15/1.40 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 7.15/1.40
% 7.15/1.40 % Proof found!
% 7.15/1.40 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 7.15/1.40 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.15/1.40 % Parsed axioms : 2759
% 7.15/1.40 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Initial clauses : 2759
% 7.15/1.40 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 7.15/1.40 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2750
% 7.15/1.40 % Processed clauses : 7251
% 7.15/1.40 % ...of these trivial : 26
% 7.15/1.40 % ...subsumed : 2245
% 7.15/1.40 % ...remaining for further processing : 4980
% 7.15/1.40 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 45
% 7.15/1.40 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Backward-subsumed : 17
% 7.15/1.40 % Backward-rewritten : 43
% 7.15/1.40 % Generated clauses : 8278
% 7.15/1.40 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6820
% 7.15/1.40 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 7.15/1.40 % Paramodulations : 8203
% 7.15/1.40 % Factorizations : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % NegExts : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Equation resolutions : 75
% 7.15/1.40 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Total rewrite steps : 2685
% 7.15/1.40 % ...of those cached : 1855
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional check models : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 7.15/1.40 % Current number of processed clauses : 2298
% 7.15/1.40 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 570
% 7.15/1.40 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 17
% 7.15/1.40 % Negative unit clauses : 345
% 7.15/1.40 % Non-unit-clauses : 1366
% 7.15/1.40 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4937
% 7.15/1.40 % ...number of literals in the above : 10207
% 7.15/1.40 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Current number of archived clauses : 2690
% 7.15/1.40 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2830445
% 7.15/1.40 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1990654
% 7.15/1.40 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1727
% 7.15/1.40 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 142078
% 7.15/1.40 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 12
% 7.15/1.40 % BW rewrite match attempts : 829
% 7.15/1.40 % BW rewrite match successes : 61
% 7.15/1.40 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Condensation successes : 0
% 7.15/1.40 % Termbank termtop insertions : 185537
% 7.15/1.40 % Search garbage collected termcells : 4032
% 7.15/1.40
% 7.15/1.40 % -------------------------------------------------
% 7.15/1.40 % User time : 0.845 s
% 7.15/1.40 % System time : 0.042 s
% 7.15/1.40 % Total time : 0.887 s
% 7.15/1.40 % Maximum resident set size: 8444 pages
% 7.15/1.40
% 7.15/1.40 % -------------------------------------------------
% 7.15/1.40 % User time : 4.068 s
% 7.15/1.40 % System time : 0.164 s
% 7.15/1.40 % Total time : 4.232 s
% 7.15/1.40 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 7.15/1.40 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------