%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU165+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 : n020.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 02:24:05 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 41 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 42 ( 16 ~; 16 |; 7 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 4 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t106_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [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',t106_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l55_zfmisc_1,lemma,
! [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(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),cartesian_product2(X3,X4))
<=> ( in(X2,X4)
& in(X1,X3) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t106_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,lemma,
! [X120,X121,X122,X123] :
( ( in(ordered_pair(X120,X121),cartesian_product2(X122,X123))
| ~ in(X121,X123)
| ~ in(X120,X122) )
& ( ~ in(ordered_pair(X120,X121),cartesian_product2(X122,X123))
| in(X121,X123) )
& ( ~ in(ordered_pair(X120,X121),cartesian_product2(X122,X123))
| in(X120,X122) ) ),
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_4,negated_conjecture,
( ( in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0))
| in(esk2_0,esk4_0) )
& ( in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0))
| in(esk1_0,esk3_0) )
& ( ~ in(esk2_0,esk4_0)
| ~ in(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,lemma,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cartesian_product2(X2,X4))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0))
| in(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X3,X1),cartesian_product2(X4,X2))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0))
| in(esk2_0,esk4_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk2_0,esk4_0)
| ~ in(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,esk4_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),cartesian_product2(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
( ~ in(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X3),cartesian_product2(X2,X4)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_11]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU165+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n020.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 05:54:47 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.45 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
% 0.21/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % sh5l with pid 2149765 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.21/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2149766 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.57
% 0.21/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 95
% 0.21/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 20
% 0.21/0.57 % Initial clauses : 132
% 0.21/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 132
% 0.21/0.57 % Processed clauses : 649
% 0.21/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 16
% 0.21/0.57 % ...subsumed : 401
% 0.21/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 232
% 0.21/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 33
% 0.21/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.21/0.57 % Generated clauses : 1355
% 0.21/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1061
% 0.21/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Paramodulations : 1320
% 0.21/0.57 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.21/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 37
% 0.21/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 317
% 0.21/0.57 % ...of those cached : 246
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 205
% 0.21/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 44
% 0.21/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.21/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 41
% 0.21/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 117
% 0.21/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 544
% 0.21/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 1300
% 0.21/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.21/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2744
% 0.21/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2284
% 0.21/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 173
% 0.21/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 339
% 0.21/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 45
% 0.21/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 21
% 0.21/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 16523
% 0.21/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1989
% 0.21/0.57
% 0.21/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.57 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.21/0.57 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.57 % Total time : 0.057 s
% 0.21/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3920 pages
% 0.21/0.57
% 0.21/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.57 % User time : 0.056 s
% 0.21/0.57 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.21/0.57 % Total time : 0.068 s
% 0.21/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.21/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------