%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET009+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 02:13:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 24 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 60 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 59 ( 23 ~; 23 |; 7 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 55 ( 2 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(difference_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( member(X3,difference(X1,X2))
<=> ( ~ member(X3,X2)
& member(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',difference_defn) ).
fof(prove_subset_difference,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> subset(difference(X3,X2),difference(X3,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_subset_difference) ).
fof(subset_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( member(X3,X1)
=> member(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',subset_defn) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( member(X3,difference(X1,X2))
<=> ( ~ member(X3,X2)
& member(X3,X1) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[difference_defn]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> subset(difference(X3,X2),difference(X3,X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_subset_difference]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X14,X15,X16] :
( ( member(X16,difference(X14,X15))
| member(X16,X15)
| ~ member(X16,X14) )
& ( ~ member(X16,difference(X14,X15))
| ~ member(X16,X15) )
& ( ~ member(X16,difference(X14,X15))
| member(X16,X14) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] :
( ( subset(X10,X11)
| ~ member(esk4_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( subset(X10,X11)
| member(esk4_2(X10,X11),X10) )
& ( member(X9,X8)
| ~ member(X9,X7)
| ~ subset(X7,X8) ) ),
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)],[subset_defn])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(difference(esk3_0,esk2_0),difference(esk3_0,esk1_0))
& subset(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ member(X1,difference(X3,X2))
| ~ member(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| member(esk4_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ member(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| member(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(esk4_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X2)
| member(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ member(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ member(esk4_2(difference(X1,X2),X3),X2)
| subset(difference(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(X1,esk1_0)
| member(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ member(esk4_2(X1,difference(X2,X3)),X2)
| member(esk4_2(X1,difference(X2,X3)),X3)
| subset(X1,difference(X2,X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( member(esk4_2(difference(X1,X2),X3),X1)
| subset(difference(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(esk4_2(difference(X1,esk2_0),X2),esk1_0)
| subset(difference(X1,esk2_0),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( member(esk4_2(difference(X1,X2),difference(X1,X3)),X3)
| subset(difference(X1,X2),difference(X1,X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(difference(esk3_0,esk2_0),difference(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
subset(difference(X1,esk2_0),difference(X1,esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET009+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:41:21 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 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
% 0.13/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1703485 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1703492 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % Processed clauses : 98
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % ...subsumed : 38
% 0.13/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 59
% 0.13/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Generated clauses : 243
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 221
% 0.13/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Paramodulations : 243
% 0.13/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 17
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of those cached : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 58
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 39
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 132
% 0.13/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 292
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 438
% 0.13/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 408
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 38
% 0.13/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 35
% 0.13/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 32
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4356
% 0.13/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 140
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------