%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET932+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 : n004.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 02:15:48 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 65 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 68 ( 26 ~; 28 |; 7 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 50 ( 0 sgn 27 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(d1_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = powerset(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> subset(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(t79_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> subset(powerset(X1),powerset(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t79_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d3_tarski) ).
fof(t1_xboole_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subset(X2,X3)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> subset(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t1_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] :
( ( X11 = powerset(X10)
| subset(esk3_2(X10,X11),X10)
| in(esk3_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( X11 = powerset(X10)
| ~ subset(esk3_2(X10,X11),X10)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( X7 != powerset(X6)
| in(X9,X7)
| ~ subset(X9,X6) )
& ( X7 != powerset(X6)
| subset(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_zfmisc_1])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> subset(powerset(X1),powerset(X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t79_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X13,X14,X15,X16,X17] :
( ( subset(X16,X17)
| ~ in(esk4_2(X16,X17),X17) )
& ( subset(X16,X17)
| in(esk4_2(X16,X17),X16) )
& ( in(X15,X14)
| ~ in(X15,X13)
| ~ subset(X13,X14) ) ),
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)],[d3_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X3 != powerset(X2)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X20,X21,X22] :
( subset(X20,X22)
| ~ subset(X21,X22)
| ~ subset(X20,X21) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t1_xboole_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(powerset(esk1_0),powerset(esk2_0))
& subset(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ in(esk4_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(X1,powerset(X2)) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ subset(X2,X3)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| subset(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( X2 != powerset(X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| subset(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ subset(esk4_2(X1,powerset(X2)),X2)
| subset(X1,powerset(X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(X1,esk1_0)
| subset(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ in(X1,powerset(X2))
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk4_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(esk4_2(X1,powerset(esk2_0)),esk1_0)
| subset(X1,powerset(esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( subset(powerset(X1),X2)
| subset(esk4_2(powerset(X1),X2),X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(powerset(esk1_0),powerset(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_21]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET932+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:43:50 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.43 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
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % sh5l with pid 2367157 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2367158 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 8
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 12
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 36
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 32
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 41
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 34
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 39
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 30
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 23
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 33
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 59
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 51
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1322
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 257
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------