%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT281-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 : Thu Sep 24 01:04:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 20 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 2 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 8 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Tarski_OPartialOrder__iff_2,axiom,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit))
| c_Relation_Otrans(c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(X1,X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Tarski_OPartialOrder__iff_2) ).
cnf(cls_Relation_Otrans__def_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X5,X3,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_Relation_Otrans(X1,X2)
| c_in(c_Pair(X5,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Relation_Otrans__def_0) ).
cnf(cls_Tarski_Or_A_61_61_Aorder_Acl_0,axiom,
v_r = c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Tarski_Or_A_61_61_Aorder_Acl_0) ).
cnf(cls_Tarski_Ocl_A_58_APartialOrder_0,axiom,
c_in(v_cl,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Tarski_Ocl_A_58_APartialOrder_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_a,v_b,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_a,v_c,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_b,v_c,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit))
| c_Relation_Otrans(c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(X1,X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Tarski_OPartialOrder__iff_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X5,X3,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_Relation_Otrans(X1,X2)
| c_in(c_Pair(X5,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Relation_Otrans__def_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit))
| c_Relation_Otrans(c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(X1,X2,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),X2) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
v_r = c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),
cls_Tarski_Or_A_61_61_Aorder_Acl_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
c_in(v_cl,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit)),
cls_Tarski_Ocl_A_58_APartialOrder_0 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X5,X3,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2))
| ~ c_Relation_Otrans(X1,X2)
| c_in(c_Pair(X5,X4,X2,X2),X1,tc_prod(X2,X2)) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_a,v_b,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
c_Relation_Otrans(v_r,t_a),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_a,v_c,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(v_b,X1,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a))
| c_in(c_Pair(v_a,X1,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_b,v_c,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(v_a,v_c,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LAT281-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.41 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:27:02 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.50 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % sh5l with pid 1448910 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.25/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1448916 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.25/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.25/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.25/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.25/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.25/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.25/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.25/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 348
% 0.25/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 14
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.53 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.53 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------