%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET631+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 02:14:49 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 55 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 57 ( 24 ~; 19 |; 8 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 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 : 48 ( 2 sgn 26 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(difference_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( member(X3,difference(X1,X2))
<=> ( ~ member(X3,X2)
& member(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',difference_defn) ).
fof(intersect_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( intersect(X1,X2)
<=> ? [X3] :
( member(X3,X2)
& member(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',intersect_defn) ).
fof(prove_th113,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( intersect(X1,difference(X2,X3))
=> intersect(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_th113) ).
fof(symmetry_of_intersect,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( intersect(X1,X2)
=> intersect(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetry_of_intersect) ).
fof(c_0_4,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_5,plain,
! [X7,X8,X10,X11,X12] :
( ( intersect(X10,X11)
| ~ member(X12,X11)
| ~ member(X12,X10) )
& ( ~ intersect(X7,X8)
| member(esk4_2(X7,X8),X8) )
& ( ~ intersect(X7,X8)
| member(esk4_2(X7,X8),X7) ) ),
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)],[intersect_defn])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X15,X16,X17] :
( ( member(X17,difference(X15,X16))
| member(X17,X16)
| ~ member(X17,X15) )
& ( ~ member(X17,difference(X15,X16))
| ~ member(X17,X16) )
& ( ~ member(X17,difference(X15,X16))
| member(X17,X15) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ member(X1,X3)
| ~ member(X1,X2)
| intersect(X2,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ intersect(X1,X2)
| member(esk4_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ member(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| member(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ intersect(X1,X2)
| member(esk4_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( intersect(X1,difference(X2,X3))
=> intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_th113]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(esk4_2(X2,X3),X1)
| ~ intersect(X2,X3)
| intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ intersect(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| member(esk4_2(X1,difference(X2,X3)),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ intersect(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& intersect(esk1_0,difference(esk2_0,esk3_0)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_11])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( intersect(X14,X13)
| ~ intersect(X13,X14) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[symmetry_of_intersect])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ intersect(X2,difference(X1,X3))
| intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
intersect(esk1_0,difference(esk2_0,esk3_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ intersect(X1,X2)
| intersect(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
intersect(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ intersect(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET631+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:35:22 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % sh5l with pid 1658850 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1658855 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.14/0.43 % Processed clauses : 26
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 24
% 0.14/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Generated clauses : 55
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 30
% 0.14/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Paramodulations : 55
% 0.14/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 21
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 13
% 0.14/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 34
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 41
% 0.14/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 41
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1087
% 0.14/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 145
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------