%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU142+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 02:23:57 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.66s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 64 ( 44 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 73 ( 26 ~; 35 |; 8 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 1 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 40 ( 2 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t69_enumset1,conjecture,
! [X1] : unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t69_enumset1) ).
fof(d2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( X3 = unordered_pair(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X4] :
( in(X4,X3)
<=> ( X4 = X2
| X4 = X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d2_tarski) ).
fof(d1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = singleton(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> X3 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] : unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t69_enumset1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X28,X29,X30,X31,X32,X33,X34,X35] :
( ( X35 = unordered_pair(X33,X34)
| esk3_3(X33,X34,X35) = X34
| esk3_3(X33,X34,X35) = X33
| in(esk3_3(X33,X34,X35),X35) )
& ( X35 = unordered_pair(X33,X34)
| ~ in(esk3_3(X33,X34,X35),X35)
| esk3_3(X33,X34,X35) != X34 )
& ( X35 = unordered_pair(X33,X34)
| ~ in(esk3_3(X33,X34,X35),X35)
| esk3_3(X33,X34,X35) != X33 )
& ( X30 != unordered_pair(X28,X29)
| in(X32,X30)
| X32 != X29 )
& ( X30 != unordered_pair(X28,X29)
| in(X32,X30)
| X32 != X28 )
& ( X30 != unordered_pair(X28,X29)
| X31 = X29
| X31 = X28
| ~ in(X31,X30) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d2_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0) != singleton(esk13_0),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X17,X18,X19,X20,X21,X22] :
( ( X22 = singleton(X21)
| esk1_2(X21,X22) = X21
| in(esk1_2(X21,X22),X22) )
& ( X22 = singleton(X21)
| esk1_2(X21,X22) != X21
| ~ in(esk1_2(X21,X22),X22) )
& ( X18 != singleton(X17)
| in(X20,X18)
| X20 != X17 )
& ( X18 != singleton(X17)
| X19 = X17
| ~ in(X19,X18) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d1_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X2 != unordered_pair(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| X1 = X4
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0) != singleton(esk13_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( X2 = singleton(X1)
| esk1_2(X1,X2) = X1
| in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ in(X1,unordered_pair(X3,X2))
| X1 = X3
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk1_2(esk13_0,unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0)),unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0))
| esk1_2(esk13_0,unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0)) = esk13_0 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( X3 != unordered_pair(X2,X4)
| X1 != X2
| in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( esk1_2(X1,X2) != X1
| ~ in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)
| X2 = singleton(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
esk1_2(esk13_0,unordered_pair(esk13_0,esk13_0)) = esk13_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
in(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU142+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:54:43 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.54 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
% 0.25/0.66 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1113366 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.25/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.66 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.66 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.66 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 164s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_208_B07CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_02_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S022A with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % G-E--_208_B07CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1113375 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.25/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.66 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.66 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.66 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 164s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Starting G-E--_208_B07CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.66 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.66 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.25/0.66
% 0.25/0.66 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.66 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.66 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.66 % Parsed axioms : 63
% 0.25/0.66 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Initial clauses : 101
% 0.25/0.66 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 7
% 0.25/0.66 % Initial clauses in saturation : 94
% 0.25/0.66 % Processed clauses : 403
% 0.25/0.66 % ...of these trivial : 12
% 0.25/0.66 % ...subsumed : 163
% 0.25/0.66 % ...remaining for further processing : 228
% 0.25/0.66 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 41
% 0.25/0.66 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.25/0.66 % Generated clauses : 840
% 0.25/0.66 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 641
% 0.25/0.66 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Paramodulations : 802
% 0.25/0.66 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Equation resolutions : 41
% 0.25/0.66 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Total rewrite steps : 253
% 0.25/0.66 % ...of those cached : 201
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.66 % Current number of processed clauses : 120
% 0.25/0.66 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 29
% 0.25/0.66 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.25/0.66 % Negative unit clauses : 16
% 0.25/0.66 % Non-unit-clauses : 71
% 0.25/0.66 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 415
% 0.25/0.66 % ...number of literals in the above : 1049
% 0.25/0.66 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Current number of archived clauses : 91
% 0.25/0.66 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1613
% 0.25/0.66 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1260
% 0.25/0.66 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 48
% 0.25/0.66 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 134
% 0.25/0.66 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % BW rewrite match attempts : 54
% 0.25/0.66 % BW rewrite match successes : 36
% 0.25/0.66 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.66 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11974
% 0.25/0.66 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1419
% 0.25/0.66
% 0.25/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.66 % User time : 0.040 s
% 0.25/0.66 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.66 % Total time : 0.049 s
% 0.25/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.25/0.66
% 0.25/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.66 % User time : 0.115 s
% 0.25/0.66 % System time : 0.028 s
% 0.25/0.66 % Total time : 0.142 s
% 0.25/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.66 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------