%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET108-6 : 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 : n004.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 02:13:37 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 4 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cartesian_product4,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',cartesian_product4) ).
cnf(prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_2,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(ordered_pair(y,z)),second(ordered_pair(y,z))),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_2) ).
cnf(prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_1,negated_conjecture,
member(ordered_pair(y,z),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product4]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(ordered_pair(y,z)),second(ordered_pair(y,z))),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
member(ordered_pair(y,z),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
prove_existence_of_1st_and_2nd_1_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(ordered_pair(y,z)),second(ordered_pair(y,z))),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(ordered_pair(y,z)),second(ordered_pair(y,z))) = ordered_pair(y,z),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_6])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET108-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n004.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 04:53:34 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.43 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
% 0.15/0.48 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % new_bool_3 with pid 2288577 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.48 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.48 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.48 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2288582 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.48 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.48 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.48 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.48 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.48
% 0.15/0.48 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.48 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.48 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.48 % Parsed axioms : 93
% 0.15/0.48 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 82
% 0.15/0.48 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.15/0.48 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.15/0.48 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.15/0.48 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.15/0.48 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % ...remaining for further processing : 31
% 0.15/0.48 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.15/0.48 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.48 % Generated clauses : 75
% 0.15/0.48 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 54
% 0.15/0.48 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Paramodulations : 73
% 0.15/0.48 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.15/0.48 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Total rewrite steps : 19
% 0.15/0.48 % ...of those cached : 3
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.48 % Current number of processed clauses : 28
% 0.15/0.48 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 17
% 0.15/0.48 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Non-unit-clauses : 11
% 0.15/0.48 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.15/0.48 % ...number of literals in the above : 54
% 0.15/0.48 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.48 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 9
% 0.15/0.48 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.15/0.48 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.15/0.48 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.15/0.48 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.15/0.48 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1803
% 0.15/0.48 % Search garbage collected termcells : 409
% 0.15/0.48
% 0.15/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.48 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.48 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 3720 pages
% 0.15/0.48
% 0.15/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.48 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.48 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.48 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------