%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET558-6 : 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 : n002.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 02:14:22 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 21 ( 10 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(compatible2,axiom,
( ~ compatible(X1,X2,X3)
| domain_of(domain_of(X2)) = domain_of(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',compatible2) ).
cnf(operation2,axiom,
( ~ operation(X1)
| cross_product(domain_of(domain_of(X1)),domain_of(domain_of(X1))) = domain_of(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',operation2) ).
cnf(prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_2,negated_conjecture,
compatible(xh,xf1,xf2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_2) ).
cnf(prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_3,negated_conjecture,
cross_product(domain_of(xh),domain_of(xh)) != domain_of(xf1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_3) ).
cnf(prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_1,negated_conjecture,
operation(xf1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ compatible(X1,X2,X3)
| domain_of(domain_of(X2)) = domain_of(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[compatible2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ operation(X1)
| cross_product(domain_of(domain_of(X1)),domain_of(domain_of(X1))) = domain_of(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[operation2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ compatible(X1,X2,X3)
| domain_of(domain_of(X2)) = domain_of(X1) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
compatible(xh,xf1,xf2),
prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
cross_product(domain_of(xh),domain_of(xh)) != domain_of(xf1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ operation(X1)
| cross_product(domain_of(domain_of(X1)),domain_of(domain_of(X1))) = domain_of(X1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
domain_of(domain_of(xf1)) = domain_of(xh),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
operation(xf1),
prove_compatible_functions_alternate_defn1_1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
cross_product(domain_of(xh),domain_of(xh)) != domain_of(xf1),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SET558-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:28:46 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % new_bool_3 with pid 2516177 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2516180 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 115
% 0.26/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 80
% 0.26/0.54 % Initial clauses : 35
% 0.26/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 35
% 0.26/0.54 % Processed clauses : 29
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 29
% 0.26/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Generated clauses : 25
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 22
% 0.26/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Paramodulations : 23
% 0.26/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 27
% 0.26/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.26/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 25
% 0.26/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 63
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 67
% 0.26/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 59
% 0.26/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1886
% 0.26/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 418
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.54 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.54 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------