%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET057-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 02:13:19 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 11 unt; 2 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 30 ( 6 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(not_subclass_members2,axiom,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',not_subclass_members2) ).
cnf(prove_equality2_3,negated_conjecture,
~ member(not_subclass_element(y,x),y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_equality2_3) ).
cnf(subclass_implies_equal,axiom,
( ~ subclass(X2,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',subclass_implies_equal) ).
cnf(prove_equality2_1,negated_conjecture,
member(not_subclass_element(x,y),y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_equality2_1) ).
cnf(not_subclass_members1,axiom,
( subclass(X1,X2)
| member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',not_subclass_members1) ).
cnf(prove_equality2_2,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_equality2_2) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[not_subclass_members2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ member(not_subclass_element(y,x),y),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_equality2_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ subclass(X2,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[subclass_implies_equal]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
member(not_subclass_element(x,y),y),
prove_equality2_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ member(not_subclass_element(y,x),y),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
( subclass(X1,X2)
| member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X1) ),
not_subclass_members1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_equality2_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ subclass(X2,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
subclass(x,y),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
subclass(y,x),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET057-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.51 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.51 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.51 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.51 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.51 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.51 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.51 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.51 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:48:18 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.52 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.52 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.56 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
% 0.17/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 2584858 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.17/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.58 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2584861 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.58 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.17/0.58
% 0.17/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.17/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.17/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 100
% 0.17/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 86
% 0.17/0.58 % Initial clauses : 14
% 0.17/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.17/0.58 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.17/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.17/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.17/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.17/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.17/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Paramodulations : 6
% 0.17/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.17/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.17/0.58 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.17/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.17/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.17/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.17/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.17/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 13
% 0.17/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.17/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.17/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.17/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1047
% 0.17/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 430
% 0.17/0.58
% 0.17/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.58 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.17/0.58 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.17/0.58 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.17/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3720 pages
% 0.17/0.58
% 0.17/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.58 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.17/0.58 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.17/0.58 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.17/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.17/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------