%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET618+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 : 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 02:14:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.28s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 14 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 3 ( 3 ~; 0 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 0 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_th93,conjecture,
! [X1] : symmetric_difference(X1,X1) = empty_set,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_th93) ).
fof(idempotency_of_union,axiom,
! [X1] : union(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',idempotency_of_union) ).
fof(symmetric_difference_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = union(difference(X1,X2),difference(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetric_difference_defn) ).
fof(self_difference_is_empty_set,axiom,
! [X1] : difference(X1,X1) = empty_set,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',self_difference_is_empty_set) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] : symmetric_difference(X1,X1) = empty_set,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_th93]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X24] : union(X24,X24) = X24,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[idempotency_of_union]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X7,X8] : symmetric_difference(X7,X8) = union(difference(X7,X8),difference(X8,X7)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[symmetric_difference_defn]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X5] : difference(X5,X5) = empty_set,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[self_difference_is_empty_set]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
symmetric_difference(esk1_0,esk1_0) != empty_set,
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_9,plain,
union(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = union(difference(X1,X2),difference(X2,X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
difference(X1,X1) = empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
symmetric_difference(esk1_0,esk1_0) != empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
symmetric_difference(X1,X1) = empty_set,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SET618+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.43 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:30:32 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.50 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
% 0.28/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % new_bool_1 with pid 2098464 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.28/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.28/0.53 % Search class: FGUSM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2098466 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.28/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.28/0.53 % Search class: FGUSM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.28/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.28/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.28/0.53 % Initial clauses : 18
% 0.28/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.28/0.53 % Processed clauses : 20
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.28/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 17
% 0.28/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.28/0.53 % Generated clauses : 18
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.28/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Paramodulations : 16
% 0.28/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 13
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of those cached : 6
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.28/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.28/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.28/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 5
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.28/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.28/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.28/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.28/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 981
% 0.28/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 241
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.28/0.53 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.28/0.53 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.28/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------