↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET619+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 : n006.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 0.15s 5.46s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   29 (  29 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   29 (  28 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    5 (   5   ~;   0   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   53 (   2 sgn  30   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_th95,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2] : union(X1,X2) = union(symmetric_difference(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_th95) ).

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(associativity_of_union,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : union(union(X1,X2),X3) = union(X1,union(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',associativity_of_union) ).

fof(union_intersection,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : union(X1,intersection(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',union_intersection) ).

fof(union_intersection_difference,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : union(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',union_intersection_difference) ).

fof(commutativity_of_intersection,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : intersection(X1,X2) = intersection(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_of_intersection) ).

fof(commutativity_of_union,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : union(X1,X2) = union(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_of_union) ).

fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2] : union(X1,X2) = union(symmetric_difference(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X2)),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_th95]) ).

fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    union(esk3_0,esk4_0) != union(symmetric_difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X4,X5] : symmetric_difference(X4,X5) = union(difference(X4,X5),difference(X5,X4)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[symmetric_difference_defn]) ).

fof(c_0_10,plain,
    ! [X6,X7,X8] : union(union(X6,X7),X8) = union(X6,union(X7,X8)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[associativity_of_union]) ).

fof(c_0_11,plain,
    ! [X9,X10] : union(X9,intersection(X9,X10)) = X9,
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[union_intersection]) ).

fof(c_0_12,plain,
    ! [X11,X12] : union(intersection(X11,X12),difference(X11,X12)) = X11,
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[union_intersection_difference]) ).

fof(c_0_13,plain,
    ! [X23,X24] : intersection(X23,X24) = intersection(X24,X23),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_of_intersection]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    union(esk3_0,esk4_0) != union(symmetric_difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = union(difference(X1,X2),difference(X2,X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

fof(c_0_16,plain,
    ! [X21,X22] : union(X21,X22) = union(X22,X21),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_of_union]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    union(union(X1,X2),X3) = union(X1,union(X2,X3)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,plain,
    union(X1,intersection(X1,X2)) = X1,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    union(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X1,X2)) = X1,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,plain,
    intersection(X1,X2) = intersection(X2,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    union(esk3_0,esk4_0) != union(union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk4_0,esk3_0)),intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    union(X1,X2) = union(X2,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,plain,
    union(X1,union(intersection(X1,X2),X3)) = union(X1,X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    union(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X2,X1)) = X2,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
    union(intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0),union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk4_0,esk3_0))) != union(esk3_0,esk4_0),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,plain,
    union(intersection(X1,X2),union(difference(X1,X2),X3)) = union(X1,X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,plain,
    union(X1,difference(X2,X1)) = union(X1,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).

cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]),c_0_27])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SET619+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.38  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.38  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.38  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.38  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.38  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.38  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.38  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/5.38  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:29:32 UTC 2026
% 0.11/5.38  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/5.38  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.43  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.43  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
% 0.15/5.46  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2091072 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/5.46  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/5.46  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % partial match(1): FGUSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_200_B02_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_S0S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2091077 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/5.46  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/5.46  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % partial match(1): FGUSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % Proof found!
% 0.15/5.46  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/5.46  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/5.46  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.15/5.46  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Initial clauses                      : 25
% 0.15/5.46  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 3
% 0.15/5.46  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 22
% 0.15/5.46  % Processed clauses                    : 105
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of these trivial                  : 18
% 0.15/5.46  % ...subsumed                          : 20
% 0.15/5.46  % ...remaining for further processing  : 67
% 0.15/5.46  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % Generated clauses                    : 420
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 309
% 0.15/5.46  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Paramodulations                      : 416
% 0.15/5.46  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Equation resolutions                 : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Total rewrite steps                  : 187
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of those cached                   : 111
% 0.15/5.46  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of processed clauses  : 44
% 0.15/5.46  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 22
% 0.15/5.46  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.15/5.46  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 19
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 245
% 0.15/5.46  % ...number of literals in the above   : 392
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of archived clauses   : 22
% 0.15/5.46  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 174
% 0.15/5.46  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 152
% 0.15/5.46  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 14
% 0.15/5.46  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 59
% 0.15/5.46  % BW rewrite match successes           : 41
% 0.15/5.46  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 4442
% 0.15/5.46  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 307
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.46  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.15/5.46  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Total time               : 0.011 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.46  % User time                : 0.027 s
% 0.15/5.46  % System time              : 0.017 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Total time               : 0.043 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/5.46  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------