%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET116-7 : 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 : n010.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 02:13:38 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 9 unt; 4 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 16 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets4_1,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets4_1) ).
cnf(existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4,axiom,
( first(X1) = X1
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4) ).
cnf(prove_unique_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets,negated_conjecture,
second(x) != x,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_unique_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets) ).
cnf(existence_of_1st_and_2nd_5,axiom,
( second(X1) = X1
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',existence_of_1st_and_2nd_5) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets4_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
( first(X1) = X1
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
first(x) = x,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
second(x) != x,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_unique_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
( second(X1) = X1
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
existence_of_1st_and_2nd_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(x,second(x)) != x,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
second(x) != x,
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_7]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET116-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.35 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:54:54 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.39 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
% 0.12/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 65354 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 65357 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 161
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 95
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses : 66
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 66
% 0.12/0.42 % Processed clauses : 55
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.12/0.42 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.12/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 45
% 0.12/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Generated clauses : 199
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 116
% 0.12/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Paramodulations : 197
% 0.12/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 81
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of those cached : 54
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 41
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 20
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 123
% 0.12/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 273
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 37
% 0.12/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 37
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.12/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 16
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3503
% 0.12/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 521
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3756 pages
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------