%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET027-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n007.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 02:13:11 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 8 unt; 2 nHn; 18 RR)
% Number of literals : 35 ( 0 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(subset1,axiom,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',subset1) ).
cnf(subset3,axiom,
( ~ member(f17(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',subset3) ).
cnf(b_subset_c,hypothesis,
subset(b,c),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b_subset_c) ).
cnf(a_subset_b,hypothesis,
subset(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_subset_b) ).
cnf(prove_a_subset_c,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(a,c),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_subset_c) ).
cnf(subset2,axiom,
( member(f17(X1,X2),X1)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET003-0.ax',subset2) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[subset1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ member(f17(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[subset3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
subset(b,c),
b_subset_c ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ member(f17(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
( ~ member(X1,b)
| member(X1,c) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
subset(a,b),
a_subset_b ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
( ~ member(f17(X1,c),b)
| subset(X1,c) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
( ~ member(X1,a)
| member(X1,b) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(a,c),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_subset_c]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
( ~ member(f17(X1,c),a)
| subset(X1,c) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
( member(f17(X1,X2),X1)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
subset2 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(a,c),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SET027-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:42:35 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.50 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
% 0.26/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 198119 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.26/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.60 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.60 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.60 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 224s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 216s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S2i with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 198131 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.60 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.60 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.60 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.60
% 0.26/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.60 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 144
% 0.26/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Initial clauses : 144
% 0.26/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.26/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 138
% 0.26/0.60 % Processed clauses : 222
% 0.26/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % ...subsumed : 53
% 0.26/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 169
% 0.26/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 0.26/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Generated clauses : 282
% 0.26/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 254
% 0.26/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.26/0.60 % Paramodulations : 277
% 0.26/0.60 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 5
% 0.26/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.26/0.60 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 164
% 0.26/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 20
% 0.26/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 141
% 0.26/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 170
% 0.26/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 486
% 0.26/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.26/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3707
% 0.26/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3079
% 0.26/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 52
% 0.26/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 89
% 0.26/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 0.26/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7424
% 0.26/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 316
% 0.26/0.60
% 0.26/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.60 % User time : 0.028 s
% 0.26/0.60 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.60 % Total time : 0.033 s
% 0.26/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3716 pages
% 0.26/0.60
% 0.26/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.60 % User time : 0.091 s
% 0.26/0.60 % System time : 0.024 s
% 0.26/0.60 % Total time : 0.116 s
% 0.26/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------