%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET479-6 : 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 : n006.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 02:14:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 10.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 27 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 22 RR)
% Number of literals : 44 ( 5 equ; 20 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 1 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 : 40 ( 7 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(subclass_members,axiom,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',subclass_members) ).
cnf(definition_of_domain_relation3,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,domain_of(X1)),domain_relation) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-1.ax',definition_of_domain_relation3) ).
cnf(ordered_pair,axiom,
unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',ordered_pair) ).
cnf(singleton_set,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',singleton_set) ).
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(definition_of_domain_relation1,axiom,
subclass(domain_relation,cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-1.ax',definition_of_domain_relation1) ).
cnf(prove_replacement_property1_2,negated_conjecture,
~ member(domain_of(x),universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_replacement_property1_2) ).
cnf(prove_replacement_property1_1,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_replacement_property1_1) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[subclass_members]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,domain_of(X1)),domain_relation) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[definition_of_domain_relation3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
unordered_pair(singleton(X1),unordered_pair(X1,singleton(X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
ordered_pair ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
singleton_set ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cartesian_product2]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subclass(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
subclass(domain_relation,cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)),
definition_of_domain_relation1 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(ordered_pair(X1,domain_of(X1)),domain_relation) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
unordered_pair(unordered_pair(X1,X1),unordered_pair(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X2))) = ordered_pair(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ member(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ member(X1,domain_relation)
| member(X1,cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(unordered_pair(unordered_pair(X1,X1),unordered_pair(X1,unordered_pair(domain_of(X1),domain_of(X1)))),domain_relation) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ member(domain_of(x),universal_class),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_replacement_property1_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ member(unordered_pair(unordered_pair(X1,X1),unordered_pair(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X2))),cross_product(X3,X4))
| member(X2,X4) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(unordered_pair(unordered_pair(X1,X1),unordered_pair(X1,unordered_pair(domain_of(X1),domain_of(X1)))),cross_product(universal_class,universal_class)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
~ member(domain_of(x),universal_class),
c_0_20 ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( ~ member(X1,universal_class)
| member(domain_of(X1),universal_class) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
member(x,universal_class),
prove_replacement_property1_1 ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),c_0_25])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET479-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/10.44 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.17/10.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/10.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/10.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/10.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/10.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/10.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/10.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:20:08 UTC 2026
% 0.17/10.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/10.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/10.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/10.51 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
% 0.22/10.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/10.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2076131 completed with status 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.22/10.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/10.64 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/10.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.64 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 311s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 308s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting sh5l with 304s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2076139 completed with status 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.22/10.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/10.64 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/10.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.64 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/10.64 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/10.64
% 0.22/10.64 % Proof found!
% 0.22/10.64 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/10.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/10.64 % Parsed axioms : 114
% 0.22/10.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Initial clauses : 114
% 0.22/10.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 17
% 0.22/10.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 97
% 0.22/10.64 % Processed clauses : 909
% 0.22/10.64 % ...of these trivial : 5
% 0.22/10.64 % ...subsumed : 358
% 0.22/10.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 546
% 0.22/10.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 6
% 0.22/10.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Backward-subsumed : 12
% 0.22/10.64 % Backward-rewritten : 49
% 0.22/10.64 % Generated clauses : 2137
% 0.22/10.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1877
% 0.22/10.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 8
% 0.22/10.64 % Paramodulations : 2129
% 0.22/10.64 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/10.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.22/10.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Total rewrite steps : 532
% 0.22/10.64 % ...of those cached : 406
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 385
% 0.22/10.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 64
% 0.22/10.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.22/10.64 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.22/10.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 316
% 0.22/10.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1018
% 0.22/10.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 2984
% 0.22/10.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 174
% 0.22/10.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 17330
% 0.22/10.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11971
% 0.22/10.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 308
% 0.22/10.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 928
% 0.22/10.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 72
% 0.22/10.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 21
% 0.22/10.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/10.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 52295
% 0.22/10.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 185
% 0.22/10.64
% 0.22/10.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/10.64 % User time : 0.081 s
% 0.22/10.64 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.22/10.64 % Total time : 0.091 s
% 0.22/10.64 % Maximum resident set size: 3480 pages
% 0.22/10.64
% 0.22/10.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/10.64 % User time : 0.272 s
% 0.22/10.64 % System time : 0.043 s
% 0.22/10.64 % Total time : 0.315 s
% 0.22/10.64 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/10.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------