%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET876+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n001.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 02:15:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 48 ( 18 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 50 ( 22 ~; 16 |; 4 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 36 ( 0 sgn 25 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t17_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( X1 != X2
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),singleton(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t17_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l28_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l28_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(symmetry_r1_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetry_r1_xboole_0) ).
fof(d1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = singleton(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> X3 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( X1 != X2
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),singleton(X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t17_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l28_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( X1 != X2
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),singleton(X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X17,X18] :
( disjoint(X18,X17)
| ~ disjoint(X17,X18) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[symmetry_r1_xboole_0])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( disjoint(singleton(X13),X14)
| in(X13,X14) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] :
( ( X11 = singleton(X10)
| esk1_2(X10,X11) = X10
| in(esk1_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( X11 = singleton(X10)
| esk1_2(X10,X11) != X10
| ~ in(esk1_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( X7 != singleton(X6)
| in(X9,X7)
| X9 != X6 )
& ( X7 != singleton(X6)
| X8 = X6
| ~ in(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)],[d1_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ disjoint(singleton(esk4_0),singleton(esk5_0))
& esk4_0 != esk5_0 ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ disjoint(X1,X2)
| disjoint(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( disjoint(singleton(X1),X2)
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( X2 != singleton(X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(singleton(esk4_0),singleton(esk5_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( in(X2,X1)
| disjoint(X1,singleton(X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ in(X1,singleton(X2))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
in(esk5_0,singleton(esk4_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
esk4_0 != esk5_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET876+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.36 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:48:14 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40 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
% 0.09/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 2312469 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2312473 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.09/0.42 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 17
% 0.09/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 0.09/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 9
% 0.09/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.09/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.09/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 5
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.09/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 6
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.09/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 682
% 0.09/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 183
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------