%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET184-6 : 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 : n016.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 02:13:50 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 6 unt; 2 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 26 ( 2 equ; 11 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(intersection2,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',intersection2) ).
cnf(not_subclass_members2,axiom,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',not_subclass_members2) ).
cnf(prove_subclass_property2_1,negated_conjecture,
intersection(x,y) = x,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_subclass_property2_1) ).
cnf(prove_subclass_property2_2,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(x,y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_subclass_property2_2) ).
cnf(not_subclass_members1,axiom,
( subclass(X1,X2)
| member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',not_subclass_members1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[intersection2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[not_subclass_members2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
intersection(x,y) = x,
prove_subclass_property2_1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X2)
| subclass(X1,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(X1,x)
| member(X1,y) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(x,y),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_subclass_property2_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(not_subclass_element(X1,y),x)
| subclass(X1,y) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
( subclass(X1,X2)
| member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X1) ),
not_subclass_members1 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(x,y),
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
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET184-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.45 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:04:22 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.24/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % sh5l with pid 1615158 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.24/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.24/0.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.57 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1615161 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.24/0.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.57 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.57
% 0.24/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.57 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 114
% 0.24/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 15
% 0.24/0.57 % Initial clauses : 99
% 0.24/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 99
% 0.24/0.57 % Processed clauses : 68
% 0.24/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 67
% 0.24/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.24/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % Generated clauses : 51
% 0.24/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 43
% 0.24/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Paramodulations : 49
% 0.24/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.24/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.24/0.57 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 64
% 0.24/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 22
% 0.24/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 41
% 0.24/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 74
% 0.24/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 170
% 0.24/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 339
% 0.24/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 302
% 0.24/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.24/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.24/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3303
% 0.24/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 231
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.028 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------