%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET925+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 : n019.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 02:15:46 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 10 ~; 8 |; 2 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t68_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(singleton(X1),X2) = empty_set
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t68_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l36_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(singleton(X1),X2) = empty_set
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l36_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(singleton(X1),X2) = empty_set
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t68_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) = empty_set )
& ( ~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) != empty_set ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X7,X8] :
( ( set_difference(singleton(X7),X8) = empty_set
| ~ in(X7,X8) )
& ( in(X7,X8)
| set_difference(singleton(X7),X8) != empty_set ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l36_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) != empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| set_difference(singleton(X1),X2) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( set_difference(singleton(X1),X2) != empty_set
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) = empty_set,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SET925+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n019.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
% 0.16/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:44:34 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % sh5l with pid 1806724 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1806725 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.53
% 0.26/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.26/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Initial clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.26/0.53 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.26/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.26/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 449
% 0.26/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 82
% 0.26/0.53
% 0.26/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.53 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.26/0.53
% 0.26/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.53 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------