%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM532+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 01:49:27 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 38 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 15 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 45 ( 20 ~; 18 |; 4 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 7 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
aSubsetOf0(xA,xA),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(mDefSub,axiom,
! [X1] :
( aSet0(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( aSubsetOf0(X2,X1)
<=> ( ! [X3] :
( aElementOf0(X3,X2)
=> aElementOf0(X3,X1) )
& aSet0(X2) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mDefSub) ).
fof(m__467,hypothesis,
aSet0(xA),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__467) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ aSubsetOf0(xA,xA),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ aSubsetOf0(xA,xA),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X8] :
( ( ~ aSet0(X5)
| aSubsetOf0(X8,X5)
| ~ aSet0(X8)
| ~ aElementOf0(esk1_2(X5,X8),X5) )
& ( ~ aSet0(X5)
| aSubsetOf0(X8,X5)
| ~ aSet0(X8)
| aElementOf0(esk1_2(X5,X8),X8) )
& ( ~ aSet0(X5)
| ~ aSubsetOf0(X6,X5)
| aElementOf0(X7,X5)
| ~ aElementOf0(X7,X6) )
& ( ~ aSet0(X5)
| ~ aSubsetOf0(X6,X5)
| aSet0(X6) ) ),
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)],[mDefSub])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ aSubsetOf0(xA,xA),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ aSet0(X1)
| ~ aSet0(X2)
| ~ aElementOf0(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)
| aSubsetOf0(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ aSet0(X1)
| ~ aSet0(X2)
| aSubsetOf0(X2,X1)
| aElementOf0(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ aSubsetOf0(xA,xA),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ aSet0(X1)
| aSubsetOf0(X1,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
aSet0(xA),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__467]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : NUM532+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.46 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:40:13 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.55 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
% 0.21/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % new_bool_3 with pid 788032 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.21/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 788040 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.60
% 0.21/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.21/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Initial clauses : 18
% 0.21/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.21/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.21/0.60 % Processed clauses : 22
% 0.21/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.21/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 21
% 0.21/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 0.21/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Generated clauses : 14
% 0.21/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.21/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Paramodulations : 11
% 0.21/0.60 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.21/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.21/0.60 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 18
% 0.21/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.21/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.21/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.21/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1327
% 0.21/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 281
% 0.21/0.60
% 0.21/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.60 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.60 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.60 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.21/0.60
% 0.21/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.60 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.21/0.60 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.21/0.60 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.21/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------