%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU140+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 : 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 02:23:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 59 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 65 ( 27 ~; 16 |; 18 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 39 ( 0 sgn 25 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t3_xboole_0,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ ( disjoint(X1,X2)
& ? [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
& in(X3,X1) ) )
& ~ ( ! [X3] :
~ ( in(X3,X2)
& in(X3,X1) )
& ~ disjoint(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t3_xboole_0) ).
fof(t63_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( disjoint(X2,X3)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> disjoint(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t63_xboole_1) ).
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,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ ( disjoint(X1,X2)
& ? [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
& in(X3,X1) ) )
& ~ ( ! [X3] :
~ ( in(X3,X2)
& in(X3,X1) )
& ~ disjoint(X1,X2) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t3_xboole_0]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( disjoint(X2,X3)
& subset(X1,X2) )
=> disjoint(X1,X3) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t63_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X101,X102,X104,X105,X106] :
( ( ~ disjoint(X104,X105)
| ~ in(X106,X105)
| ~ in(X106,X104) )
& ( disjoint(X101,X102)
| in(esk9_2(X101,X102),X102) )
& ( disjoint(X101,X102)
| in(esk9_2(X101,X102),X101) ) ),
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)],[c_0_3])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ disjoint(esk11_0,esk13_0)
& disjoint(esk12_0,esk13_0)
& subset(esk11_0,esk12_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( ~ disjoint(X2,X3)
| ~ in(X1,X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
disjoint(esk12_0,esk13_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(esk11_0,esk13_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( disjoint(X1,X2)
| in(esk9_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X28,X29,X30,X31,X32] :
( ( subset(X31,X32)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X31,X32),X32) )
& ( subset(X31,X32)
| in(esk3_2(X31,X32),X31) )
& ( in(X30,X29)
| ~ in(X30,X28)
| ~ subset(X28,X29) ) ),
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_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk12_0)
| ~ in(X1,esk13_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk9_2(esk11_0,esk13_0),esk13_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ in(X3,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk11_0,esk12_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk9_2(esk11_0,esk13_0),esk12_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk11_0)
| in(X1,esk12_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,lemma,
( disjoint(X1,X2)
| in(esk9_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk9_2(esk11_0,esk13_0),esk11_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEU140+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:52:05 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.50 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
% 0.25/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3276299 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with pid 3276306 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S059I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 56
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses : 87
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 82
% 0.25/0.58 % Processed clauses : 314
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.25/0.58 % ...subsumed : 105
% 0.25/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 203
% 0.25/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 17
% 0.25/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.25/0.58 % Generated clauses : 434
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 346
% 0.25/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Paramodulations : 417
% 0.25/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 17
% 0.25/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 171
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of those cached : 124
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 111
% 0.25/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 23
% 0.25/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 19
% 0.25/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 67
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 182
% 0.25/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 363
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 80
% 0.25/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 857
% 0.25/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 655
% 0.25/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 21
% 0.25/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 63
% 0.25/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 44
% 0.25/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 29
% 0.25/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8439
% 0.25/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1150
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.59 % User time : 0.033 s
% 0.25/0.59 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Total time : 0.038 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3420 pages
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.59 % User time : 0.136 s
% 0.25/0.59 % System time : 0.026 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Total time : 0.162 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------