%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU149+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 0.12s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 63 ( 44 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 69 ( 25 ~; 29 |; 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 : 47 ( 3 sgn 31 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(d1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = singleton(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> X3 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_tarski) ).
fof(t8_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X2,X3)
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t8_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(d2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( X3 = unordered_pair(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X4] :
( in(X4,X3)
<=> ( X4 = X2
| X4 = X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d2_tarski) ).
fof(commutativity_k2_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : unordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_k2_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X19,X20,X21,X22,X23,X24] :
( ( X24 = singleton(X23)
| esk5_2(X23,X24) = X23
| in(esk5_2(X23,X24),X24) )
& ( X24 = singleton(X23)
| esk5_2(X23,X24) != X23
| ~ in(esk5_2(X23,X24),X24) )
& ( X20 != singleton(X19)
| in(X22,X20)
| X22 != X19 )
& ( X20 != singleton(X19)
| X21 = X19
| ~ in(X21,X20) ) ),
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])])])])])])]) ).
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,
! [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])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X2 != singleton(X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| 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,
( X3 != unordered_pair(X4,X2)
| X1 != X2
| in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X8,X9] : unordered_pair(X8,X9) = unordered_pair(X9,X8),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_tarski]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ in(X1,singleton(X2))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
singleton(esk1_0) = unordered_pair(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
in(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X1)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
unordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,unordered_pair(esk2_0,esk3_0))
| X1 = esk1_0 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
in(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU149+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:55:52 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.43 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
% 0.12/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % new_bool_3 with pid 1507572 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1507578 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 21
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 19
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 18
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 5
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 13
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 14
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 31
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 978
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 317
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------