%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU130+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 : 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 02:28:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 40 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 34 ( 14 ~; 11 |; 5 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 30 ( 2 sgn 21 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t28_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> set_intersection2(X1,X2) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t28_xboole_1) ).
fof(t19_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subset(X1,X3)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> subset(X1,set_intersection2(X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t19_xboole_1) ).
fof(reflexivity_r1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reflexivity_r1_tarski) ).
fof(d10_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X1 = X2
<=> ( subset(X2,X1)
& subset(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d10_xboole_0) ).
fof(t17_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] : subset(set_intersection2(X1,X2),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t17_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> set_intersection2(X1,X2) = X1 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t28_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,lemma,
! [X58,X59,X60] :
( subset(X58,set_intersection2(X59,X60))
| ~ subset(X58,X60)
| ~ subset(X58,X59) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t19_xboole_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( set_intersection2(esk7_0,esk8_0) != esk7_0
& subset(esk7_0,esk8_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_8,lemma,
( ~ subset(X1,X3)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| subset(X1,set_intersection2(X2,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk7_0,esk8_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X51] : subset(X51,X51),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X11,X12] :
( ( X11 = X12
| ~ subset(X12,X11)
| ~ subset(X11,X12) )
& ( X11 != X12
| subset(X12,X11) )
& ( X11 != X12
| subset(X11,X12) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d10_xboole_0])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(esk7_0,X1)
| subset(esk7_0,set_intersection2(X1,esk8_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
subset(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_14,lemma,
! [X56,X57] : subset(set_intersection2(X56,X57),X56),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t17_xboole_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ subset(X2,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk7_0,set_intersection2(esk7_0,esk8_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,lemma,
subset(set_intersection2(X1,X2),X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
set_intersection2(esk7_0,esk8_0) != esk7_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU130+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:51:49 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.12/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1821265 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % new_bool_3 with pid 1821275 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 38
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 58
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 55
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 157
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 25
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 129
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 258
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 193
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 246
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 72
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 49
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 66
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 42
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 142
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 348
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 54
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 637
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 504
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 48
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 37
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5395
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 798
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.053 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.065 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------