%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET959+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 02:15:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 64 ( 21 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 76 ( 31 ~; 20 |; 17 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 52 ( 0 sgn 39 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t112_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( ! [X3,X4] :
( in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X1)
<=> in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X1) ) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t112_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(t2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
<=> in(X3,X2) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t2_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( ! [X3,X4] :
( in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X1)
<=> in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X1) ) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t112_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( ! [X3,X4] :
( in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X1)
<=> in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X2) )
& ! [X3] :
~ ( ! [X4,X5] : X3 != ordered_pair(X4,X5)
& in(X3,X1) ) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X8,X11,X14,X15] :
( esk1_0 != esk2_0
& ( in(ordered_pair(X14,X15),esk1_0)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X14,X15),esk2_0) )
& ( in(ordered_pair(X14,X15),esk2_0)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X14,X15),esk1_0) )
& ( X11 = ordered_pair(esk5_1(X11),esk6_1(X11))
| ~ in(X11,esk2_0) )
& ( X8 = ordered_pair(esk3_1(X8),esk4_1(X8))
| ~ in(X8,esk1_0) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),esk2_0)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),esk1_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk2_0)
| X1 = ordered_pair(esk5_1(X1),esk6_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X18,X19] :
( ( X18 = X19
| in(esk7_2(X18,X19),X19)
| in(esk7_2(X18,X19),X18) )
& ( X18 = X19
| ~ in(esk7_2(X18,X19),X19)
| ~ in(esk7_2(X18,X19),X18) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t2_tarski])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk2_0)
| in(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( X1 = X2
| in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X2)
| in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk7_2(esk2_0,X1),X1)
| in(esk7_2(esk2_0,X1),esk1_0)
| esk2_0 = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk7_2(esk2_0,esk1_0),esk1_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),esk1_0)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| X1 = ordered_pair(esk3_1(X1),esk4_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk7_2(esk2_0,esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| in(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET959+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.41 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:46:25 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.49 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: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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 271246 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 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 271253 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 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 : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.55 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 8
% 0.25/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.25/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.25/0.55 % Processed clauses : 31
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.25/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 28
% 0.25/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Generated clauses : 36
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 27
% 0.25/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Paramodulations : 30
% 0.25/0.55 % Factorizations : 6
% 0.25/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.25/0.55 % ...of those cached : 1
% 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 : 26
% 0.25/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 0.25/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 14
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.25/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 18
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 36
% 0.25/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 30
% 0.25/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.25/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.25/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 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 : 1198
% 0.25/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 258
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.55 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.25/0.55
% 0.25/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.55 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.25/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------