%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET093+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 02:13:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.10s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 16 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 6 ( 3 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 3 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(unordered_pair,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET005+0.ax',unordered_pair) ).
fof(singleton_set_defn,axiom,
! [X1] : singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET005+0.ax',singleton_set_defn) ).
fof(corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( singleton(member_of(X1)) = X1
=> member(X1,universal_class) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X68,X69] : member(unordered_pair(X68,X69),universal_class),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[unordered_pair]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X22] : singleton(X22) = unordered_pair(X22,X22),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[singleton_set_defn]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( singleton(member_of(X1)) = X1
=> member(X1,universal_class) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(esk1_0,universal_class)
& singleton(member_of(esk1_0)) = esk1_0 ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
member(singleton(X1),universal_class),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
singleton(member_of(esk1_0)) = esk1_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ member(esk1_0,universal_class),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET093+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:51:41 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41 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
% 0.10/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % sh5l with pid 1006838 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.10/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.10/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1006846 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.10/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.10/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.43
% 0.10/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 48
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses : 88
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 88
% 0.10/0.44 % Processed clauses : 20
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.10/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.10/0.44 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.10/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.10/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 17
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 72
% 0.10/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 159
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.10/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4928
% 0.10/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 942
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3948 pages
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------