%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV240-2 : 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 : n003.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 02:54:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 7 unt; 2 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 34 ( 0 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 40 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Set_OsubsetI_1,axiom,
( ~ c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,X2,X3),X2,X3)
| c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_OsubsetI_1) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oanalz_OInj_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oanalz_OInj_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(v_G,v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_G),v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__cong_0,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X3),c_Message_Oanalz(X4),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X3,X1,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X4,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__cong_0) ).
cnf(cls_Set_OsubsetI_0,axiom,
( c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3))
| c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,X2,X3),X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_OsubsetI_0) ).
cnf(cls_Set_Osubset__refl_0,axiom,
c_lessequals(X1,X1,tc_set(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_Osubset__refl_0) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,X2,X3),X2,X3)
| c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Set_OsubsetI_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Oanalz_OInj_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,X2,X3),X2,X3)
| c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(v_G,v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_G),v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X3),c_Message_Oanalz(X4),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X3,X1,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X4,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__cong_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg),X2,tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
( c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3))
| c_in(c_Main_OsubsetI__1(X1,X2,X3),X1,X3) ),
cls_Set_OsubsetI_0 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(v_G,v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_G),v_H,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X3),c_Message_Oanalz(X4),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X3,X1,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X4,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
c_lessequals(X1,X1,tc_set(X2)),
cls_Set_Osubset__refl_0 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV240-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:37:01 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.42 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
% 0.14/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % sh5l with pid 3874705 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.45 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.45 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3874707 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.45 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.45 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.14/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.14/0.45 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.14/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.14/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.14/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.14/0.45 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.14/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 3
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 15
% 0.14/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 15
% 0.14/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.14/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.14/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 416
% 0.14/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 14
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.45 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.14/0.45
% 0.14/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.45 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.14/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------