%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU137+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 : n013.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 02:23:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 19 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 12 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t45_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> X2 = set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t45_xboole_1) ).
fof(t39_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] : set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) = set_union2(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t39_xboole_1) ).
fof(t12_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(X1,X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t12_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> X2 = set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t45_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( esk2_0 != set_union2(esk1_0,set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_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_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X26,X27] : set_union2(X26,set_difference(X27,X26)) = set_union2(X26,X27),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t39_xboole_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != set_union2(esk1_0,set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) = set_union2(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_8,lemma,
! [X23,X24] :
( set_union2(X23,X24) = X24
| ~ subset(X23,X24) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t12_xboole_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(esk1_0,esk2_0) != esk2_0,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ subset(X1,X2)
| set_union2(X1,X2) = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU137+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:51:50 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.41 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
% 0.09/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % sh5l with pid 67657 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.09/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.09/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 67658 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.09/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.09/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 50
% 0.09/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % Initial clauses : 74
% 0.09/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 74
% 0.09/0.43 % Processed clauses : 89
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.09/0.43 % ...subsumed : 25
% 0.09/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 61
% 0.09/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.09/0.43 % Generated clauses : 163
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 89
% 0.09/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Paramodulations : 159
% 0.09/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 75
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of those cached : 53
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 55
% 0.09/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.09/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.09/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 30
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 74
% 0.09/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 188
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.09/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 226
% 0.09/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 196
% 0.09/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 26
% 0.09/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 50
% 0.09/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 24
% 0.09/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 18
% 0.09/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5250
% 0.09/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1045
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.43 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.09/0.43 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3668 pages
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.43 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.09/0.43 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------