%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU120+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 02:23:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 50 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 63 ( 32 ~; 14 |; 14 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 3 sgn 21 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t4_xboole_0,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ ( disjoint(X1,X2)
& ? [X3] : in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2)) )
& ~ ( ! [X3] : ~ in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2))
& ~ disjoint(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t4_xboole_0) ).
fof(d1_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1] :
( X1 = empty_set
<=> ! [X2] : ~ in(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_xboole_0) ).
fof(d7_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(X1,X2)
<=> set_intersection2(X1,X2) = empty_set ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d7_xboole_0) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ~ ( disjoint(X1,X2)
& ? [X3] : in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2)) )
& ~ ( ! [X3] : ~ in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2))
& ~ disjoint(X1,X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t4_xboole_0]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ~ ( disjoint(X1,X2)
& ? [X3] : in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2)) )
& ~ ( ! [X3] : ~ in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2))
& ~ disjoint(X1,X2) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1] :
( X1 = empty_set
<=> ! [X2] : ~ in(X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d1_xboole_0]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X6] :
( ( ~ in(X6,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0))
| disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0) )
& ( ~ in(X6,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0))
| in(esk3_0,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0)) )
& ( ~ disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0) )
& ( ~ disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| in(esk3_0,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X14,X15,X16] :
( ( X16 = empty_set
| in(esk4_1(X16),X16) )
& ( ~ in(X15,X14)
| X14 != empty_set ) ),
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)],[c_0_5])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X8,X9] :
( ( disjoint(X8,X9)
| set_intersection2(X8,X9) != empty_set )
& ( set_intersection2(X8,X9) = empty_set
| ~ disjoint(X8,X9) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d7_xboole_0])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0))
| disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( X1 = empty_set
| in(esk4_1(X1),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ disjoint(X1,X2)
| set_intersection2(X1,X2) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ in(X2,X1)
| X1 != empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| in(esk3_0,set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
set_intersection2(esk1_0,esk2_0) = empty_set,
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
~ in(X1,empty_set),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( set_intersection2(X1,X2) != empty_set
| disjoint(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEU120+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.43 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:51:04 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.51 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: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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 3273466 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FGHSS-FFSF21-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 3273471 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FGHSS-FFSF21-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 : 0.001 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 : 12
% 0.26/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.26/0.53 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.26/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.26/0.53 % Processed clauses : 19
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 19
% 0.26/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Generated clauses : 13
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Paramodulations : 12
% 0.26/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 6
% 0.26/0.53 % ...of those cached : 4
% 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 : 15
% 0.26/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.26/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5
% 0.26/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.26/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.26/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.26/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 784
% 0.26/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 130
% 0.26/0.53
% 0.26/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.53 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.26/0.53 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3592 pages
% 0.26/0.53
% 0.26/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.53 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.53 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.26/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------