%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU153+2 : 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 : n008.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 02:24:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 39 ( 13 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 35 ( 17 ~; 9 |; 6 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 1 sgn 19 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l25_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
~ ( in(X1,X2)
& disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l25_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(t83_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(X1,X2)
<=> set_difference(X1,X2) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t83_xboole_1) ).
fof(l1_zfmisc_1,lemma,
! [X1] : singleton(X1) != empty_set,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l1_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l32_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set
<=> subset(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l32_xboole_1) ).
fof(l2_zfmisc_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(singleton(X1),X2)
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l2_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
~ ( in(X1,X2)
& disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l25_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,lemma,
! [X93,X94] :
( ( disjoint(X93,X94)
| set_difference(X93,X94) != X93 )
& ( set_difference(X93,X94) = X93
| ~ disjoint(X93,X94) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t83_xboole_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,lemma,
! [X1] : singleton(X1) != empty_set,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l1_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_9,lemma,
! [X107,X108] :
( ( set_difference(X107,X108) = empty_set
| ~ subset(X107,X108) )
& ( subset(X107,X108)
| set_difference(X107,X108) != empty_set ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l32_xboole_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ disjoint(X1,X2)
| set_difference(X1,X2) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_12,lemma,
! [X95] : singleton(X95) != empty_set,
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
( ~ subset(X1,X2)
| set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
set_difference(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) = singleton(esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,lemma,
singleton(X1) != empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
fof(c_0_16,lemma,
! [X64,X65] :
( ( subset(singleton(X64),X65)
| ~ in(X64,X65) )
& ( in(X64,X65)
| ~ subset(singleton(X64),X65) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l2_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,lemma,
~ subset(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,lemma,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| subset(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU153+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:54:09 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % sh5l with pid 287014 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 287018 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 76
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 13
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses : 103
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 103
% 0.14/0.43 % Processed clauses : 135
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.14/0.43 % ...subsumed : 46
% 0.14/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 83
% 0.14/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 9
% 0.14/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Generated clauses : 200
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 112
% 0.14/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Paramodulations : 192
% 0.14/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 9
% 0.14/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 81
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of those cached : 51
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 75
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 28
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.14/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 12
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 80
% 0.14/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 207
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 130
% 0.14/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 127
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 21
% 0.14/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.14/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 24
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 19
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7136
% 0.14/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1537
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3948 pages
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------