%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET025-9 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 02:13:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.29s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.29s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 23 ( 9 equ; 8 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(ordered_pair_predicate3,axiom,
( ~ ordered_pair_predicate(X1)
| X1 = ordered_pair(f2(X1),f3(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',ordered_pair_predicate3) ).
cnf(ordered_pair,axiom,
ordered_pair(X1,X2) = non_ordered_pair(singleton_set(X1),non_ordered_pair(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',ordered_pair) ).
cnf(singleton_set,axiom,
singleton_set(X1) = non_ordered_pair(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',singleton_set) ).
cnf(non_ordered_pair4,axiom,
little_set(non_ordered_pair(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',non_ordered_pair4) ).
cnf(prove_predicate_is_small,negated_conjecture,
~ little_set(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_predicate_is_small) ).
cnf(an_ordered_pair_predicate,hypothesis,
ordered_pair_predicate(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',an_ordered_pair_predicate) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ ordered_pair_predicate(X1)
| X1 = ordered_pair(f2(X1),f3(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ordered_pair_predicate3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
ordered_pair(X1,X2) = non_ordered_pair(singleton_set(X1),non_ordered_pair(X1,X2)),
ordered_pair ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
singleton_set(X1) = non_ordered_pair(X1,X1),
singleton_set ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ ordered_pair_predicate(X1)
| X1 = ordered_pair(f2(X1),f3(X1)) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
ordered_pair(X1,X2) = non_ordered_pair(non_ordered_pair(X1,X1),non_ordered_pair(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
little_set(non_ordered_pair(X1,X2)),
non_ordered_pair4 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ ordered_pair_predicate(X1)
| X1 = non_ordered_pair(non_ordered_pair(f2(X1),f2(X1)),non_ordered_pair(f2(X1),f3(X1))) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ little_set(a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_predicate_is_small]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ ordered_pair_predicate(X1)
| little_set(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
ordered_pair_predicate(a),
an_ordered_pair_predicate ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ little_set(a),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET025-9 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.49 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.22/0.49 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.22/0.49 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.22/0.49 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.22/0.49 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.22/0.49 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.22/0.49 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.22/0.50 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:44:25 UTC 2026
% 0.22/0.50 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/0.50 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.58 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.58 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
% 0.29/0.69 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.29/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 46141 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.29/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.29/0.69 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.29/0.69 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.69 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.69 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 224s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 216s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S2i with 136s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % SubtermCWHack with pid 46148 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.29/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.29/0.69 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.29/0.69 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.69 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.69 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.29/0.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.69 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.29/0.69
% 0.29/0.69 % Proof found!
% 0.29/0.69 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.29/0.69 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.29/0.69 % Parsed axioms : 143
% 0.29/0.69 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Initial clauses : 143
% 0.29/0.69 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.29/0.69 % Initial clauses in saturation : 137
% 0.29/0.69 % Processed clauses : 309
% 0.29/0.69 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % ...subsumed : 86
% 0.29/0.69 % ...remaining for further processing : 223
% 0.29/0.69 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 8
% 0.29/0.69 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.29/0.69 % Generated clauses : 570
% 0.29/0.69 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 508
% 0.29/0.69 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 0.29/0.69 % Paramodulations : 560
% 0.29/0.69 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.29/0.69 % NegExts : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Equation resolutions : 8
% 0.29/0.69 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Total rewrite steps : 36
% 0.29/0.69 % ...of those cached : 21
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.69 % Current number of processed clauses : 207
% 0.29/0.69 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 23
% 0.29/0.69 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.29/0.69 % Non-unit-clauses : 181
% 0.29/0.69 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 315
% 0.29/0.69 % ...number of literals in the above : 891
% 0.29/0.69 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Current number of archived clauses : 14
% 0.29/0.69 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6361
% 0.29/0.69 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4747
% 0.29/0.69 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 80
% 0.29/0.69 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 174
% 0.29/0.69 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.29/0.69 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.29/0.69 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.29/0.69 % Termbank termtop insertions : 10347
% 0.29/0.69 % Search garbage collected termcells : 316
% 0.29/0.69
% 0.29/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.69 % User time : 0.036 s
% 0.29/0.69 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.29/0.69 % Total time : 0.045 s
% 0.29/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 3512 pages
% 0.29/0.69
% 0.29/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.69 % User time : 0.149 s
% 0.29/0.69 % System time : 0.030 s
% 0.29/0.69 % Total time : 0.180 s
% 0.29/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.29/0.69 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------