%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET242-6 : 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 : n003.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 02:13:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 2 equ; 11 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(intersection3,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,X3)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',intersection3) ).
cnf(prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_3,negated_conjecture,
~ member(z,restrict(xr,x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_3) ).
cnf(restriction2,axiom,
intersection(cross_product(X1,X2),X3) = restrict(X3,X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',restriction2) ).
cnf(prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_2,negated_conjecture,
member(z,cross_product(x,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_2) ).
cnf(prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_1,negated_conjecture,
member(z,xr),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X3)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[intersection3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ member(z,restrict(xr,x,y)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X3)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
intersection(cross_product(X1,X2),X3) = restrict(X3,X1,X2),
restriction2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ member(z,restrict(xr,x,y)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X2)
| ~ member(X1,cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X1,restrict(X2,X3,X4)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
member(z,cross_product(x,y)),
prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
member(z,xr),
prove_restriction_alternate_defn5_1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET242-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.40 % Computer : n003.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 05:04:46 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.45 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
% 0.25/0.55 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % new_bool_3 with pid 3467274 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.55 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3467277 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.55 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.55 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 115
% 0.25/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 79
% 0.25/0.55 % Initial clauses : 36
% 0.25/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 36
% 0.25/0.55 % Processed clauses : 189
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 30
% 0.25/0.55 % ...subsumed : 34
% 0.25/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 125
% 0.25/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Generated clauses : 717
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 598
% 0.25/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Paramodulations : 715
% 0.25/0.55 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 133
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of those cached : 85
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of processed clauses : 123
% 0.25/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 46
% 0.25/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 74
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 445
% 0.25/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 879
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 908
% 0.25/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 824
% 0.25/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 34
% 0.25/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 258
% 0.25/0.55 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Termbank termtop insertions : 13384
% 0.25/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 429
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.25/0.55 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55 % User time : 0.023 s
% 0.25/0.55 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Total time : 0.032 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------