%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET019+4 : 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 : n020.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 02:13:07 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 25 ( 9 ~; 6 |; 7 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(thI02,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( subset(X2,X1)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> equal_set(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',thI02) ).
fof(equal_set,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( equal_set(X1,X2)
<=> ( subset(X2,X1)
& subset(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SET006+0.ax',equal_set) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( subset(X2,X1)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> equal_set(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[thI02]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ equal_set(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& subset(esk2_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_2])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X8,X9] :
( ( equal_set(X8,X9)
| ~ subset(X9,X8)
| ~ subset(X8,X9) )
& ( ~ equal_set(X8,X9)
| subset(X9,X8) )
& ( ~ equal_set(X8,X9)
| subset(X8,X9) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[equal_set])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ equal_set(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ subset(X2,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| equal_set(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET019+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:44:02 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.54 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
% 0.26/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 2025687 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.57 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2025689 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.57 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.26/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 9
% 0.26/0.57 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.26/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.26/0.57 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.26/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.26/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.26/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.26/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.26/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 4
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.26/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.26/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.26/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.26/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 652
% 0.26/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 211
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.57 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.57 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3852 pages
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.57 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.57 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------