%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM560+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 01:49:34 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.10s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 30 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 32 ( 9 ~; 7 |; 10 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn 5 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( ( ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
<=> ( sdtlpdtrp0(xF,X1) = xy
& aElementOf0(X1,szDzozmdt0(xF)) ) )
& aSet0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy)) )
=> ( aSubsetOf0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy),szDzozmdt0(xF))
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
=> aElementOf0(X1,szDzozmdt0(xF)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
<=> ( sdtlpdtrp0(xF,X1) = xy
& aElementOf0(X1,szDzozmdt0(xF)) ) )
& aSet0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy)) )
=> ( aSubsetOf0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy),szDzozmdt0(xF))
| ! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
=> aElementOf0(X1,szDzozmdt0(xF)) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X5] :
( ~ aSubsetOf0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy),szDzozmdt0(xF))
& ~ aElementOf0(esk1_0,szDzozmdt0(xF))
& aElementOf0(esk1_0,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
& ( aElementOf0(X5,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
| sdtlpdtrp0(xF,X5) != xy
| ~ aElementOf0(X5,szDzozmdt0(xF)) )
& ( ~ aElementOf0(X5,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
| sdtlpdtrp0(xF,X5) = xy )
& ( ~ aElementOf0(X5,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
| aElementOf0(X5,szDzozmdt0(xF)) )
& aSet0(sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy)) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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(esk1_0,szDzozmdt0(xF)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy))
| aElementOf0(X1,szDzozmdt0(xF)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
aElementOf0(esk1_0,sdtlbdtrb0(xF,xy)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]),c_0_5])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM560+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:45:09 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.40 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
% 0.10/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1388287 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.42 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1388290 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.42 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.42
% 0.10/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 68
% 0.10/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 53
% 0.10/0.42 % Initial clauses : 31
% 0.10/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.10/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 27
% 0.10/0.42 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.10/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.10/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.10/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.10/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.10/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.10/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 13
% 0.10/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.10/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.10/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.10/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.10/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 70
% 0.10/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.10/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.10/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.10/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3153
% 0.10/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1005
% 0.10/0.42
% 0.10/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.10/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3712 pages
% 0.10/0.42
% 0.10/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.42 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.10/0.42 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.42 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.10/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.10/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------