%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : TOP004-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n013.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 03:53:49 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 6 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 6 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 8 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(lemma_1d_4,negated_conjecture,
~ element_of_collection(intersection_of_sets(X1,X2),top_of_basis(f)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lemma_1d_4) ).
cnf(lemma_1d_2,negated_conjecture,
element_of_collection(X1,top_of_basis(f)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lemma_1d_2) ).
cnf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ element_of_collection(intersection_of_sets(X1,X2),top_of_basis(f)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[lemma_1d_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ element_of_collection(intersection_of_sets(X1,X2),top_of_basis(f)),
c_0_2 ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
element_of_collection(X1,top_of_basis(f)),
lemma_1d_2 ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : TOP004-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 12:37:38 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.49 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
% 0.25/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % new_bool_3 with pid 772796 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 772802 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.25/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 14
% 0.25/0.53 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Processed clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.25/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 2
% 0.25/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.25/0.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.25/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 7
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 274
% 0.25/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 105
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.53 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.53 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------