%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU150+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 0.15s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 65 ( 45 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 2 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 : 46 ( 3 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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d2_tarski) ).
fof(t9_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( singleton(X1) = unordered_pair(X2,X3)
=> X2 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t9_zfmisc_1) ).
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(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,
! [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)
=> X2 = X3 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t9_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X23,X24,X25,X26,X27,X28] :
( ( X28 = singleton(X27)
| esk5_2(X27,X28) = X27
| in(esk5_2(X27,X28),X28) )
& ( X28 = singleton(X27)
| esk5_2(X27,X28) != X27
| ~ in(esk5_2(X27,X28),X28) )
& ( X24 != singleton(X23)
| in(X26,X24)
| X26 != X23 )
& ( X24 != singleton(X23)
| X25 = X23
| ~ in(X25,X24) ) ),
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,
( esk2_0 != esk3_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]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X8,X9] : unordered_pair(X8,X9) = unordered_pair(X9,X8),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_tarski]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ in(X1,singleton(X2))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_0,singleton(esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
unordered_pair(X1,X2) = unordered_pair(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk3_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
in(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
unordered_pair(esk2_0,esk3_0) = singleton(esk3_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,singleton(esk3_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_19]),c_0_20]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU150+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:53:10 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 0.15/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % new_bool_3 with pid 1112705 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1112712 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.45
% 0.15/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.45 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 73
% 0.15/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 25
% 0.15/0.45 % Initial clauses : 83
% 0.15/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 83
% 0.15/0.45 % Processed clauses : 118
% 0.15/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.15/0.45 % ...subsumed : 44
% 0.15/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 68
% 0.15/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 13
% 0.15/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.45 % Generated clauses : 171
% 0.15/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 96
% 0.15/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Paramodulations : 161
% 0.15/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 13
% 0.15/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 65
% 0.15/0.45 % ...of those cached : 41
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 58
% 0.15/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 26
% 0.15/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.15/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.15/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 0.15/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 60
% 0.15/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 158
% 0.15/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 52
% 0.15/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 52
% 0.15/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.15/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 36
% 0.15/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 28
% 0.15/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 21
% 0.15/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5822
% 0.15/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1353
% 0.15/0.45
% 0.15/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.45 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.45 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.45 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3692 pages
% 0.15/0.45
% 0.15/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.45 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.45 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.45 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.15/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------