%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU125+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 02:28:09 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 70 ( 8 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 73 ( 25 ~; 31 |; 11 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 42 ( 0 sgn 26 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t8_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subset(X3,X2)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> subset(set_union2(X1,X3),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t8_xboole_1) ).
fof(d2_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( X3 = set_union2(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X4] :
( in(X4,X3)
<=> ( in(X4,X2)
| in(X4,X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d2_xboole_0) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d3_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subset(X3,X2)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> subset(set_union2(X1,X3),X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t8_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X17,X18,X19,X20,X21,X22,X23,X24] :
( ( X24 = set_union2(X22,X23)
| in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X23)
| in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X22)
| in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X24) )
& ( X24 = set_union2(X22,X23)
| ~ in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X24)
| ~ in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X23) )
& ( X24 = set_union2(X22,X23)
| ~ in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X24)
| ~ in(esk2_3(X22,X23,X24),X22) )
& ( X19 != set_union2(X17,X18)
| in(X21,X19)
| ~ in(X21,X18) )
& ( X19 != set_union2(X17,X18)
| in(X21,X19)
| ~ in(X21,X17) )
& ( X19 != set_union2(X17,X18)
| in(X20,X18)
| in(X20,X17)
| ~ in(X20,X19) ) ),
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)],[d2_xboole_0])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0)
& subset(esk11_0,esk10_0)
& subset(esk9_0,esk10_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X26,X27,X28,X29,X30] :
( ( subset(X29,X30)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X29,X30),X30) )
& ( subset(X29,X30)
| in(esk3_2(X29,X30),X29) )
& ( in(X28,X27)
| ~ in(X28,X26)
| ~ subset(X26,X27) ) ),
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,
( X2 != set_union2(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| in(X1,X4)
| in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ in(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk11_0,esk10_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ in(X1,set_union2(X3,X2))
| in(X1,X3)
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk9_0,esk10_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk11_0)
| in(X1,esk10_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),esk9_0)
| in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),esk11_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),esk10_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk9_0)
| in(X1,esk10_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),esk9_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU125+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.42 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:51:48 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.48 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
% 0.25/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2693099 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with pid 2693106 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.59 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.25/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Initial clauses : 53
% 0.25/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.25/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 50
% 0.25/0.60 % Processed clauses : 400
% 0.25/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 18
% 0.25/0.60 % ...subsumed : 152
% 0.25/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 230
% 0.25/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 12
% 0.25/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 12
% 0.25/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.25/0.60 % Generated clauses : 633
% 0.25/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 536
% 0.25/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Paramodulations : 611
% 0.25/0.60 % Factorizations : 10
% 0.25/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 12
% 0.25/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 87
% 0.25/0.60 % ...of those cached : 57
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 159
% 0.25/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 34
% 0.25/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 29
% 0.25/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 94
% 0.25/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 232
% 0.25/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 654
% 0.25/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 62
% 0.25/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2534
% 0.25/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2036
% 0.25/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 108
% 0.25/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 667
% 0.25/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 44
% 0.25/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 31
% 0.25/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8690
% 0.25/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 757
% 0.25/0.60
% 0.25/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.60 % User time : 0.034 s
% 0.25/0.60 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.60 % Total time : 0.043 s
% 0.25/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3656 pages
% 0.25/0.60
% 0.25/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.60 % User time : 0.138 s
% 0.25/0.60 % System time : 0.031 s
% 0.25/0.60 % Total time : 0.169 s
% 0.25/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------