%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET124-6 : 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 : n002.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 0.24s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 29 ( 17 unt; 3 nHn; 16 RR)
% Number of literals : 44 ( 7 equ; 20 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 39 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_2,negated_conjecture,
~ member(x,set_builder(x,z)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_2) ).
cnf(definition_of_set_builder,axiom,
union(singleton(X1),X2) = set_builder(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',definition_of_set_builder) ).
cnf(singleton_set,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',singleton_set) ).
cnf(union,axiom,
complement(intersection(complement(X1),complement(X2))) = union(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',union) ).
cnf(complement2,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',complement2) ).
cnf(intersection1,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',intersection1) ).
cnf(prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_1,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_1) ).
cnf(complement1,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,X2)
| ~ member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',complement1) ).
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(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ member(x,set_builder(x,z)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
union(singleton(X1),X2) = set_builder(X1,X2),
definition_of_set_builder ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
singleton_set ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ member(x,set_builder(x,z)),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
union(unordered_pair(X1,X1),X2) = set_builder(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
complement(intersection(complement(X1),complement(X2))) = union(X1,X2),
union ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[complement2]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[intersection1]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ member(x,complement(intersection(complement(unordered_pair(x,x)),complement(z)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
prove_set_builder_alternate_defn2_1 ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X2)
| ~ member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[complement1]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X2) ),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
member(x,intersection(complement(unordered_pair(x,x)),complement(z))),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X2)
| ~ member(X1,complement(X2)) ),
c_0_20 ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
member(x,complement(unordered_pair(x,x))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[unordered_pair2]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
~ member(x,unordered_pair(x,x)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)) ),
c_0_25 ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET124-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.45 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:57:33 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.24/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2476393 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 311s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 308s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 304s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2476400 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 94
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses : 94
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 16
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 78
% 0.24/0.58 % Processed clauses : 75
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...subsumed : 8
% 0.24/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 67
% 0.24/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.24/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Generated clauses : 78
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 59
% 0.24/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Paramodulations : 76
% 0.24/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.24/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 13
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of those cached : 6
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 64
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 21
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 39
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 62
% 0.24/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 151
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 17
% 0.24/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 248
% 0.24/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 162
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.24/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 107
% 0.24/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4746
% 0.24/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 156
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3464 pages
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.056 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.029 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.085 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------