%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET204-6 : 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 : 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 02:13:55 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.27s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 29 ( 0 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 36 ( 12 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cartesian_product1,axiom,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',cartesian_product1) ).
cnf(cartesian_product2,axiom,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',cartesian_product2) ).
cnf(prove_cross_product_property2_2,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(v,u),cross_product(y,x)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_cross_product_property2_2) ).
cnf(cartesian_product3,axiom,
( ~ member(X3,X4)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cross_product(X2,X4)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',cartesian_product3) ).
cnf(prove_cross_product_property2_1,negated_conjecture,
member(ordered_pair(u,v),cross_product(x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_cross_product_property2_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X1,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(v,u),cross_product(y,x)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_cross_product_property2_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X4)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cross_product(X2,X4)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X1,X3) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
member(ordered_pair(u,v),cross_product(x,y)),
prove_cross_product_property2_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(v,u),cross_product(y,x)),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X4)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cross_product(X2,X4)) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
member(u,x),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
member(v,y),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET204-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.44 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:00:20 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.52 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
% 0.27/0.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % new_bool_1 with pid 2300322 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.27/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.61 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2300325 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.61 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.61
% 0.27/0.61 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.61 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.27/0.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.61 % Parsed axioms : 114
% 0.27/0.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 109
% 0.27/0.61 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.27/0.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.27/0.61 % Processed clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.61 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 7
% 0.27/0.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.27/0.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.27/0.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.27/0.61 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.27/0.61 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.27/0.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.27/0.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.27/0.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1078
% 0.27/0.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 511
% 0.27/0.61
% 0.27/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.61 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.27/0.61 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.61 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.27/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 3692 pages
% 0.27/0.61
% 0.27/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.61 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.27/0.61 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.27/0.61 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.27/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------