%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET018-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 02:13:07 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% 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 ( 13 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 14 ( 7 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(ordered_pair_determines_components2,axiom,
( ~ member(X2,universal_class)
| ordered_pair(X1,X2) != ordered_pair(X3,X4)
| X2 = X4 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ordered_pair_determines_components2) ).
cnf(prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_1,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(w,x) = ordered_pair(y,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_1) ).
cnf(prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_2,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_2) ).
cnf(prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_3,negated_conjecture,
x != z,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_3) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ member(X2,universal_class)
| ordered_pair(X1,X2) != ordered_pair(X3,X4)
| X2 = X4 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ordered_pair_determines_components2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ member(X2,universal_class)
| ordered_pair(X1,X2) != ordered_pair(X3,X4)
| X2 = X4 ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(w,x) = ordered_pair(y,z),
prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_2 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
x != z,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_ordered_pair_determines_components2_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ordered_pair(y,z) != ordered_pair(X2,X1)
| x = X1 ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
x != z,
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET018-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:45:13 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % new_bool_1 with pid 985586 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 985589 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 170
% 0.14/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 110
% 0.14/0.45 % Initial clauses : 60
% 0.14/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 60
% 0.14/0.45 % Processed clauses : 316
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 18
% 0.14/0.45 % ...subsumed : 171
% 0.14/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 127
% 0.14/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.14/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 0.14/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.14/0.45 % Generated clauses : 1702
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1100
% 0.14/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Paramodulations : 1696
% 0.14/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.14/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 675
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of those cached : 564
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 116
% 0.14/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 36
% 0.14/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 75
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 837
% 0.14/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 2463
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 599
% 0.14/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 557
% 0.14/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 156
% 0.14/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.14/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 28
% 0.14/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 15
% 0.14/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 15952
% 0.14/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 548
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45 % User time : 0.021 s
% 0.14/0.45 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3760 pages
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45 % User time : 0.028 s
% 0.14/0.45 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Total time : 0.034 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------