%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET122-7 : 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 : 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 02:13:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.88s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 8 unt; 5 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 10 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 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 : 17 ( 9 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_2,negated_conjecture,
second(ordered_pair(x,y)) != ordered_pair(x,y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_2) ).
cnf(existence_of_1st_and_2nd_3,axiom,
( second(X1) = X1
| member(ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',existence_of_1st_and_2nd_3) ).
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(corollary_2_to_cartesian_product,axiom,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,universal_class) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_2_to_cartesian_product) ).
cnf(prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_1,negated_conjecture,
~ member(y,universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
second(ordered_pair(x,y)) != ordered_pair(x,y),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
( second(X1) = X1
| member(ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)) ),
existence_of_1st_and_2nd_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
( second(X1) = X1
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
existence_of_1st_and_2nd_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,universal_class) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[corollary_2_to_cartesian_product]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
second(ordered_pair(x,y)) != ordered_pair(x,y),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( member(X1,cross_product(universal_class,universal_class))
| second(X1) = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ member(y,universal_class),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_2_to_OP_determines_components2_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,universal_class) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
member(ordered_pair(x,y),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ member(y,universal_class),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET122-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.78 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.78 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.78 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.78 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.78 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.78 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.78 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.78 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:54:51 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.78 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.78 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.83 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.83 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
% 0.15/0.88 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % sh5l with pid 2291000 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.88 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.15/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.88 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.88 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.88 % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2291001 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.88 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.88 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.88 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.88 % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.88 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.88
% 0.15/0.88 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.88 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.88 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.89 % Parsed axioms : 169
% 0.15/0.89 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 11
% 0.15/0.89 % Initial clauses : 158
% 0.15/0.89 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Initial clauses in saturation : 158
% 0.15/0.89 % Processed clauses : 450
% 0.15/0.89 % ...of these trivial : 7
% 0.15/0.89 % ...subsumed : 179
% 0.15/0.89 % ...remaining for further processing : 264
% 0.15/0.89 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 29
% 0.15/0.89 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Backward-subsumed : 5
% 0.15/0.89 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.15/0.89 % Generated clauses : 1696
% 0.15/0.89 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1199
% 0.15/0.89 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 0.15/0.89 % Paramodulations : 1658
% 0.15/0.89 % Factorizations : 6
% 0.15/0.89 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Equation resolutions : 32
% 0.15/0.89 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Total rewrite steps : 546
% 0.15/0.89 % ...of those cached : 414
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.89 % Current number of processed clauses : 252
% 0.15/0.89 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 68
% 0.15/0.89 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.15/0.89 % Negative unit clauses : 13
% 0.15/0.89 % Non-unit-clauses : 167
% 0.15/0.89 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 902
% 0.15/0.89 % ...number of literals in the above : 2357
% 0.15/0.89 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.15/0.89 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4817
% 0.15/0.89 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4345
% 0.15/0.89 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 151
% 0.15/0.89 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 693
% 0.15/0.89 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % BW rewrite match attempts : 35
% 0.15/0.89 % BW rewrite match successes : 15
% 0.15/0.89 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.89 % Termbank termtop insertions : 19504
% 0.15/0.89 % Search garbage collected termcells : 288
% 0.15/0.89
% 0.15/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.89 % User time : 0.033 s
% 0.15/0.89 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.89 % Total time : 0.037 s
% 0.15/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 4016 pages
% 0.15/0.89
% 0.15/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.89 % User time : 0.040 s
% 0.15/0.89 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.89 % Total time : 0.046 s
% 0.15/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.89 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------