%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET101-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 02:13:35 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 12 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 18 ( 5 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 7 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_singleton_member_of_ordered_pair_1,negated_conjecture,
~ member(singleton(x),ordered_pair(x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_singleton_member_of_ordered_pair_1) ).
cnf(ordered_pair,axiom,
unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',ordered_pair) ).
cnf(singleton_set,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',singleton_set) ).
cnf(unordered_pair2,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',unordered_pair2) ).
cnf(unordered_pairs_in_universal,axiom,
member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',unordered_pairs_in_universal) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ member(singleton(x),ordered_pair(x,y)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_singleton_member_of_ordered_pair_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
ordered_pair ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
singleton_set ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ member(singleton(x),ordered_pair(x,y)),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
unordered_pair(unordered_pair(X1,X1),unordered_pair(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[unordered_pair2]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ member(unordered_pair(x,x),unordered_pair(unordered_pair(x,x),unordered_pair(x,unordered_pair(y,y)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
unordered_pairs_in_universal ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SET101-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.44 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:53:02 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.55 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2596251 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.55 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.55 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 311s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 308s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 304s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2596258 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.55 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.55 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.55 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 92
% 0.26/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Initial clauses : 92
% 0.26/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 15
% 0.26/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 77
% 0.26/0.55 % Processed clauses : 154
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % ...subsumed : 35
% 0.26/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 119
% 0.26/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.26/0.55 % Generated clauses : 302
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 245
% 0.26/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.26/0.55 % Paramodulations : 300
% 0.26/0.55 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 61
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of those cached : 35
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of processed clauses : 112
% 0.26/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.26/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.26/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 85
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 166
% 0.26/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 427
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 20
% 0.26/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1780
% 0.26/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 883
% 0.26/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 26
% 0.26/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 140
% 0.26/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 9
% 0.26/0.55 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.26/0.55 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7676
% 0.26/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 156
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.55 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.26/0.55 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3720 pages
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.55 % User time : 0.052 s
% 0.26/0.55 % System time : 0.020 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Total time : 0.072 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------