%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET762+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 02:15:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 53 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 54 ( 23 ~; 16 |; 9 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 45 ( 6 sgn 31 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(empty_set,axiom,
! [X3] : ~ member(X3,empty_set),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET006+0.ax',empty_set) ).
fof(thIIa12,conjecture,
! [X6,X1,X2] :
( maps(X6,X1,X2)
=> equal_set(image2(X6,empty_set),empty_set) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',thIIa12) ).
fof(subset,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( member(X3,X1)
=> member(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET006+0.ax',subset) ).
fof(image2,axiom,
! [X6,X1,X5] :
( member(X5,image2(X6,X1))
<=> ? [X3] :
( apply(X6,X3,X5)
& member(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET006+1.ax',image2) ).
fof(equal_set,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( equal_set(X1,X2)
<=> ( subset(X2,X1)
& subset(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET006+0.ax',equal_set) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X3] : ~ member(X3,empty_set),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[empty_set]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X6,X1,X2] :
( maps(X6,X1,X2)
=> equal_set(image2(X6,empty_set),empty_set) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[thIIa12]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X22] : ~ member(X22,empty_set),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X47,X48,X49,X50,X51] :
( ( subset(X50,X51)
| ~ member(esk10_2(X50,X51),X51) )
& ( subset(X50,X51)
| member(esk10_2(X50,X51),X50) )
& ( member(X49,X48)
| ~ member(X49,X47)
| ~ subset(X47,X48) ) ),
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])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X23,X24,X25,X27,X28,X29,X30] :
( ( member(X29,image2(X27,X28))
| ~ apply(X27,X30,X29)
| ~ member(X30,X28) )
& ( ~ member(X25,image2(X23,X24))
| apply(X23,esk4_3(X23,X24,X25),X25) )
& ( ~ member(X25,image2(X23,X24))
| member(esk4_3(X23,X24,X25),X24) ) ),
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)],[image2])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ equal_set(image2(esk1_0,empty_set),empty_set)
& maps(esk1_0,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_6])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X20,X21] :
( ( equal_set(X20,X21)
| ~ subset(X21,X20)
| ~ subset(X20,X21) )
& ( ~ equal_set(X20,X21)
| subset(X21,X20) )
& ( ~ equal_set(X20,X21)
| subset(X20,X21) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[equal_set])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
~ member(X1,empty_set),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| member(esk10_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ member(X3,image2(X1,X2))
| member(esk4_3(X1,X2,X3),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ equal_set(image2(esk1_0,empty_set),empty_set),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ subset(X2,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| equal_set(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
subset(empty_set,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
~ member(X1,image2(X2,empty_set)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(image2(esk1_0,empty_set),empty_set),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
subset(image2(X1,empty_set),X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET762+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:31:42 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.51 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
% 0.25/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 1532808 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1532811 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 29
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 23
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses : 27
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 27
% 0.25/0.58 % Processed clauses : 16
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 0.25/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.25/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Paramodulations : 11
% 0.25/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 18
% 0.25/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 61
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.25/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.25/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2143
% 0.25/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 788
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3692 pages
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------