%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET231-6 : 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 : n012.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 02:13:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.09s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 7 unt; 3 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 7 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cartesian_product4,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',cartesian_product4) ).
cnf(prove_cross_product_property6_2,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z)),second(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z))) != not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_cross_product_property6_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(prove_cross_product_property6_1,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(cross_product(x,y),z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_cross_product_property6_1) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product4]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z)),second(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z))) != not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_cross_product_property6_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
( subclass(X1,X2)
| member(not_subclass_element(X1,X2),X1) ),
not_subclass_members1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(cross_product(x,y),z),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_cross_product_property6_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z)),second(not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z))) != not_subclass_element(cross_product(x,y),z),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( subclass(cross_product(X1,X2),X3)
| ordered_pair(first(not_subclass_element(cross_product(X1,X2),X3)),second(not_subclass_element(cross_product(X1,X2),X3))) = not_subclass_element(cross_product(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ subclass(cross_product(x,y),z),
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
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET231-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:01:24 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40 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
% 0.09/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % new_bool_1 with pid 1608429 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1608431 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 114
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 101
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses : 13
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.09/0.42 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...subsumed : 6
% 0.09/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 27
% 0.09/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Generated clauses : 51
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 44
% 0.09/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Paramodulations : 49
% 0.09/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 25
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 21
% 0.09/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 92
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 141
% 0.09/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 101
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.09/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2059
% 0.09/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 494
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.09/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------