%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SET117+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n020.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 02:16:36 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% 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 : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 4 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(unordered_pair,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET005+0.ax',unordered_pair) ).
fof(ordered_pair_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : ordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET005+0.ax',ordered_pair_defn) ).
fof(corollary_1_to_ordered_pairs_are_sets,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1
=> member(X1,universal_class) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_1_to_ordered_pairs_are_sets) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X46,X47] : member(unordered_pair(X46,X47),universal_class),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[unordered_pair]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X22,X23] : ordered_pair(X22,X23) = unordered_pair(singleton(X22),unordered_pair(X22,singleton(X23))),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ordered_pair_defn]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1
=> member(X1,universal_class) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[corollary_1_to_ordered_pairs_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,
ordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(esk1_0,universal_class)
& ordered_pair(first(esk1_0),second(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(ordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(esk1_0),second(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
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET117+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.43 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:55:32 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.50 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
% 0.27/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % sh5l with pid 2049304 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.27/0.56 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.27/0.56 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2049307 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.27/0.56 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.27/0.56 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.56 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 44
% 0.27/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.27/0.56 % Initial clauses : 76
% 0.27/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 76
% 0.27/0.56 % Processed clauses : 159
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.27/0.56 % ...subsumed : 38
% 0.27/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 120
% 0.27/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 0.27/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 5
% 0.27/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 6
% 0.27/0.56 % Generated clauses : 281
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 258
% 0.27/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Paramodulations : 276
% 0.27/0.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 5
% 0.27/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 33
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 104
% 0.27/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 29
% 0.27/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 73
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 152
% 0.27/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 376
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.27/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 962
% 0.27/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 870
% 0.27/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 36
% 0.27/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 126
% 0.27/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 10
% 0.27/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.27/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7286
% 0.27/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 890
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.56 % User time : 0.026 s
% 0.27/0.56 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Total time : 0.028 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.56 % User time : 0.032 s
% 0.27/0.56 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Total time : 0.039 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------