%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM557+3 : 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 : n001.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 01:49:33 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 35 ( 10 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 35 ( 12 ~; 11 |; 9 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 5 ( 0 sgn 4 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( aElementOf0(xP,slbdtsldtrb0(xS,xk))
| ( sbrdtbr0(xP) = xk
& ( aSubsetOf0(xP,xS)
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xP)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xS) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__2431,hypothesis,
( sbrdtbr0(xP) = xk
& aSubsetOf0(xP,xS)
& ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xP)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xS) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__2431) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( aElementOf0(xP,slbdtsldtrb0(xS,xk))
| ( sbrdtbr0(xP) = xk
& ( aSubsetOf0(xP,xS)
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xP)
=> aElementOf0(X1,xS) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aElementOf0(xP,slbdtsldtrb0(xS,xk))
& ( sbrdtbr0(xP) != xk
| ~ aSubsetOf0(xP,xS) )
& ( sbrdtbr0(xP) != xk
| ~ aElementOf0(esk16_0,xS) )
& ( sbrdtbr0(xP) != xk
| aElementOf0(esk16_0,xP) ) ),
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])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
! [X149] :
( sbrdtbr0(xP) = xk
& aSubsetOf0(xP,xS)
& ( aElementOf0(X149,xS)
| ~ aElementOf0(X149,xP) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[m__2431])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( sbrdtbr0(xP) != xk
| aElementOf0(esk16_0,xP) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sbrdtbr0(xP) = xk,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,xP)
| aElementOf0(X1,xS) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
aElementOf0(esk16_0,xP),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( sbrdtbr0(xP) != xk
| ~ aElementOf0(esk16_0,xS) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk16_0,xS),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_6]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM557+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n001.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 02:45:28 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.43 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
% 0.15/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2019283 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.15/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2019287 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.47
% 0.15/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 73
% 0.15/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Initial clauses : 178
% 0.15/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.15/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 172
% 0.15/0.47 % Processed clauses : 60
% 0.15/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.15/0.47 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.15/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 52
% 0.15/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.15/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Generated clauses : 13
% 0.15/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 12
% 0.15/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.15/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.15/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 17
% 0.15/0.47 % ...of those cached : 6
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 48
% 0.15/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 30
% 0.15/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.15/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 10
% 0.15/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 124
% 0.15/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 496
% 0.15/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.15/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.15/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 27
% 0.15/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.48 % Termbank termtop insertions : 12907
% 0.15/0.48 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2925
% 0.15/0.48
% 0.15/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.48 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.15/0.48 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Total time : 0.026 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 3976 pages
% 0.15/0.48
% 0.15/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.48 % User time : 0.030 s
% 0.15/0.48 % System time : 0.024 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Total time : 0.054 s
% 0.15/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.48 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------