%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET238-6 : 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 : n001.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 02:13:57 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 6 equ; 10 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 : 10 ( 10 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 10 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(intersection2,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',intersection2) ).
cnf(restriction1,axiom,
intersection(X1,cross_product(X2,X3)) = restrict(X1,X2,X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',restriction1) ).
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_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_1,negated_conjecture,
member(z,restrict(xr,x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_1) ).
cnf(prove_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_2,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(z),second(z)),restrict(xr,x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_2) ).
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(X1,intersection(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
intersection(X1,cross_product(X2,X3)) = restrict(X1,X2,X3),
restriction1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(X1,restrict(X4,X2,X3))
| member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
member(z,restrict(xr,x,y)),
prove_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(z),second(z)),restrict(xr,x,y)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_to_restriction_alternate_defn1_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(X1,cross_product(X2,X3))
| ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
member(z,cross_product(x,y)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ member(ordered_pair(first(z),second(z)),restrict(xr,x,y)),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
ordered_pair(first(z),second(z)) = z,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET238-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.40 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.40 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.40 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.40 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.40 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.40 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.40 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.40 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:07:59 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.48 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
% 0.26/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % new_bool_3 with pid 2253067 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2253071 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.26/0.52
% 0.26/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.52 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 114
% 0.26/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 78
% 0.26/0.52 % Initial clauses : 36
% 0.26/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 36
% 0.26/0.52 % Processed clauses : 50
% 0.26/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.26/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 47
% 0.26/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.26/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.26/0.52 % Generated clauses : 51
% 0.26/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 42
% 0.26/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Paramodulations : 49
% 0.26/0.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.26/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 6
% 0.26/0.52 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 44
% 0.26/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.26/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 0.26/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 0.26/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 76
% 0.26/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 147
% 0.26/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 134
% 0.26/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.26/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 12
% 0.26/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.26/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.26/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2279
% 0.26/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 425
% 0.26/0.52
% 0.26/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.52 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.26/0.52 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.52 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.26/0.52
% 0.26/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.52 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.52 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.26/0.52 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.26/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------