%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET962+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 0.24s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 63 ( 16 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 64 ( 24 ~; 30 |; 5 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 42 ( 5 sgn 17 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t115_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( cartesian_product2(X1,X1) = cartesian_product2(X2,X2)
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t115_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l55_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cartesian_product2(X3,X4))
<=> ( in(X2,X4)
& in(X1,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l55_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(t2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
<=> in(X3,X2) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t2_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( cartesian_product2(X1,X1) = cartesian_product2(X2,X2)
=> X1 = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t115_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X7,X8,X9,X10] :
( ( in(ordered_pair(X7,X8),cartesian_product2(X9,X10))
| ~ in(X8,X10)
| ~ in(X7,X9) )
& ( ~ in(ordered_pair(X7,X8),cartesian_product2(X9,X10))
| in(X8,X10) )
& ( ~ in(ordered_pair(X7,X8),cartesian_product2(X9,X10))
| in(X7,X9) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l55_zfmisc_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( esk1_0 != esk2_0
& cartesian_product2(esk1_0,esk1_0) = cartesian_product2(esk2_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cartesian_product2(X2,X4))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
cartesian_product2(esk1_0,esk1_0) = cartesian_product2(esk2_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cartesian_product2(esk2_0,esk2_0))
| in(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ in(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cartesian_product2(X2,X4)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( ( X13 = X14
| in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X14)
| in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X13) )
& ( X13 = X14
| ~ in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X14)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X13) ) ),
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_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ in(X2,esk2_0)
| in(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( X1 = X2
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X2,esk2_0)
| in(X2,esk1_0)
| in(esk3_2(esk2_0,X1),X1)
| esk2_0 = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| ~ in(X2,esk1_0)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cartesian_product2(esk2_0,esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk3_2(esk2_0,X2),X2)
| in(esk3_2(esk2_0,X1),X1)
| in(esk3_2(esk2_0,X1),esk1_0)
| esk2_0 = X2
| esk2_0 = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| ~ in(X2,esk1_0)
| in(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_2(esk2_0,esk1_0),esk1_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| in(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk3_2(esk2_0,esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_18]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_18]),c_0_21]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET962+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:45:34 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.49 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
% 0.24/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % new_bool_3 with pid 3265375 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.52 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3265382 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.52 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.52
% 0.24/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.24/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.24/0.52 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.24/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.24/0.52 % Processed clauses : 34
% 0.24/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.24/0.52 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.24/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 30
% 0.24/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.24/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Generated clauses : 72
% 0.24/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 62
% 0.24/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Paramodulations : 62
% 0.24/0.52 % Factorizations : 10
% 0.24/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.24/0.52 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 27
% 0.24/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.24/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.24/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 19
% 0.24/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 35
% 0.24/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 171
% 0.24/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.24/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 132
% 0.24/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 92
% 0.24/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.24/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.24/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1709
% 0.24/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 152
% 0.24/0.52
% 0.24/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.52 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.52 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.52 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.24/0.52
% 0.24/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.52 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.52 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.52 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.24/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------