%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM533+2 : 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 : n019.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 0.14s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 35 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 34 ( 8 ~; 6 |; 12 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( ( aSubsetOf0(xB,xC)
& ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xB)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xC) )
& aSubsetOf0(xA,xB)
& ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xA)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xB) ) )
=> ( aSubsetOf0(xA,xC)
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xA)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xC) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( aSubsetOf0(xB,xC)
& ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xB)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xC) )
& aSubsetOf0(xA,xB)
& ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xA)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xB) ) )
=> ( aSubsetOf0(xA,xC)
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xA)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xC) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( ~ aSubsetOf0(xA,xC)
& ~ aElementOf0(esk1_0,xC)
& aElementOf0(esk1_0,xA)
& aSubsetOf0(xB,xC)
& ( aElementOf0(X5,xC)
| ~ aElementOf0(X5,xB) )
& aSubsetOf0(xA,xB)
& ( aElementOf0(X4,xB)
| ~ aElementOf0(X4,xA) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,xA)
| aElementOf0(X1,xB) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
aElementOf0(esk1_0,xA),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ aElementOf0(esk1_0,xC),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,xB)
| aElementOf0(X1,xC) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
aElementOf0(esk1_0,xB),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM533+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n019.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 02:38:19 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1509317 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1509320 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 15
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses : 26
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 23
% 0.14/0.42 % Processed clauses : 20
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.14/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 17
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7
% 0.14/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 27
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1586
% 0.14/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 415
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------