%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET903+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 02:15:43 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.16s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 80 ( 79 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 32 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 99 ( 38 ~; 36 |; 25 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 29 ( 4 sgn 15 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t44_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
~ ( X3 != empty_set
& X2 != empty_set
& X2 != X3
& singleton(X1) = set_union2(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t44_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(t43_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
~ ( ~ ( X3 = empty_set
& X2 = singleton(X1) )
& ~ ( X3 = singleton(X1)
& X2 = empty_set )
& ~ ( X3 = singleton(X1)
& X2 = singleton(X1) )
& singleton(X1) = set_union2(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t43_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
~ ( X3 != empty_set
& X2 != empty_set
& X2 != X3
& singleton(X1) = set_union2(X2,X3) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t44_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X7,X8,X9] :
( ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = empty_set )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = singleton(X7) )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = empty_set
| X9 = empty_set )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = empty_set
| X8 = singleton(X7) )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X8 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = empty_set )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X8 = singleton(X7)
| X9 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = singleton(X7) )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X8 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = empty_set
| X9 = empty_set )
& ( singleton(X7) != set_union2(X8,X9)
| X8 = singleton(X7)
| X8 = empty_set
| X8 = singleton(X7) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t43_zfmisc_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
~ ( X3 != empty_set
& X2 != empty_set
& X2 != X3
& singleton(X1) = set_union2(X2,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( singleton(X2) != set_union2(X3,X1)
| X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( esk3_0 != empty_set
& esk2_0 != empty_set
& esk2_0 != esk3_0
& singleton(esk1_0) = set_union2(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_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( singleton(X2) != set_union2(X3,X1)
| X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = empty_set ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
singleton(esk1_0) = set_union2(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 != empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( singleton(X1) != singleton(esk1_0)
| singleton(X1) = esk3_0 ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( singleton(X2) != set_union2(X1,X3)
| X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = empty_set
| X1 = singleton(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
singleton(esk1_0) = esk3_0,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( singleton(X2) != set_union2(X1,X3)
| X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = empty_set ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(esk2_0,esk3_0) = esk3_0,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( singleton(X1) != esk3_0
| singleton(X1) = esk2_0 ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_12]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET903+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.52 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.52 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.52 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.52 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.52 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.52 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.52 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.52 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:48:59 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.52 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.52 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.56 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
% 0.16/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 2314923 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.58 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2314928 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.58 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.58
% 0.16/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.16/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.16/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Initial clauses : 19
% 0.16/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 19
% 0.16/0.58 % Processed clauses : 25
% 0.16/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % ...subsumed : 5
% 0.16/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.16/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.16/0.58 % Generated clauses : 23
% 0.16/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 16
% 0.16/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Paramodulations : 22
% 0.16/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.16/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 6
% 0.16/0.58 % ...of those cached : 4
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.16/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.16/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.16/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.16/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.16/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.16/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 34
% 0.16/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.16/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11
% 0.16/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.16/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.16/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.16/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 7
% 0.16/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 817
% 0.16/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 121
% 0.16/0.58
% 0.16/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.58 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.16/0.58 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.16/0.58 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.16/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.16/0.58
% 0.16/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.58 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.16/0.58 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.16/0.58 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.16/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.16/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------