%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU149+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 : n010.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 02:23:59 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 64 ( 45 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 67 ( 24 ~; 28 |; 9 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 44 ( 2 sgn 31 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(t8_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X2,X3)
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t8_zfmisc_1) ).
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(commutativity_k2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : unordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_k2_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X10,X11,X12,X13,X14,X15,X16,X17] :
( ( X17 = unordered_pair(X15,X16)
| esk4_3(X15,X16,X17) = X16
| esk4_3(X15,X16,X17) = X15
| in(esk4_3(X15,X16,X17),X17) )
& ( X17 = unordered_pair(X15,X16)
| ~ in(esk4_3(X15,X16,X17),X17)
| esk4_3(X15,X16,X17) != X16 )
& ( X17 = unordered_pair(X15,X16)
| ~ in(esk4_3(X15,X16,X17),X17)
| esk4_3(X15,X16,X17) != X15 )
& ( X12 != unordered_pair(X10,X11)
| in(X14,X12)
| X14 != X11 )
& ( X12 != unordered_pair(X10,X11)
| in(X14,X12)
| X14 != X10 )
& ( X12 != unordered_pair(X10,X11)
| X13 = X11
| X13 = X10
| ~ in(X13,X12) ) ),
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,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X2,X3)
=> X1 = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t8_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X20,X21,X22,X23,X24,X25] :
( ( X25 = singleton(X24)
| esk5_2(X24,X25) = X24
| in(esk5_2(X24,X25),X25) )
& ( X25 = singleton(X24)
| esk5_2(X24,X25) != X24
| ~ in(esk5_2(X24,X25),X25) )
& ( X21 != singleton(X20)
| in(X23,X21)
| X23 != X20 )
& ( X21 != singleton(X20)
| X22 = X20
| ~ in(X22,X21) ) ),
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,
( X3 != unordered_pair(X4,X2)
| X1 != X2
| in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( esk1_0 != esk2_0
& singleton(esk1_0) = unordered_pair(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( X2 != singleton(X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
in(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X1)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
singleton(esk1_0) = unordered_pair(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ in(X1,singleton(X2))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_0,singleton(esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_14,plain,
! [X8,X9] : unordered_pair(X8,X9) = unordered_pair(X9,X8),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_tarski]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 = esk1_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
unordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
unordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0) = singleton(esk1_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_15]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,singleton(esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SEU149+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.55 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.55 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.55 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.55 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.55 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.56 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.56 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.56 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:53:25 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.56 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.56 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.60 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
% 0.13/0.63 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % new_bool_3 with pid 160427 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.63 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.63 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.63 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % SubtermCWHack with pid 160430 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.63 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.63 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.63 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.63 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.63
% 0.13/0.63 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.63 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.63 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.63 % Parsed axioms : 72
% 0.13/0.63 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 25
% 0.13/0.63 % Initial clauses : 82
% 0.13/0.63 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Initial clauses in saturation : 82
% 0.13/0.63 % Processed clauses : 118
% 0.13/0.63 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.13/0.63 % ...subsumed : 44
% 0.13/0.63 % ...remaining for further processing : 68
% 0.13/0.63 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 13
% 0.13/0.63 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.13/0.63 % Generated clauses : 165
% 0.13/0.63 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 91
% 0.13/0.63 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Paramodulations : 155
% 0.13/0.63 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Equation resolutions : 13
% 0.13/0.63 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Total rewrite steps : 66
% 0.13/0.63 % ...of those cached : 41
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.63 % Current number of processed clauses : 57
% 0.13/0.63 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 25
% 0.13/0.63 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.13/0.63 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.63 % Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 0.13/0.63 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 53
% 0.13/0.63 % ...number of literals in the above : 146
% 0.13/0.63 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.63 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 43
% 0.13/0.63 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 43
% 0.13/0.63 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.13/0.63 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 35
% 0.13/0.63 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % BW rewrite match attempts : 28
% 0.13/0.63 % BW rewrite match successes : 21
% 0.13/0.63 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.63 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5741
% 0.13/0.63 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1319
% 0.13/0.63
% 0.13/0.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.63 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.63 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.63 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.63 % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 0.13/0.63
% 0.13/0.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.63 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.13/0.63 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.13/0.63 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.13/0.63 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.63 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------