%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU154+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 : 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 02:28:17 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 66 ( 14 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 75 ( 31 ~; 22 |; 16 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 49 ( 0 sgn 30 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(d1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = singleton(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> X3 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_tarski) ).
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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t3_xboole_0) ).
fof(l28_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l28_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(symmetry_r1_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetry_r1_xboole_0) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X30,X31,X32,X33,X34,X35] :
( ( X35 = singleton(X34)
| esk5_2(X34,X35) = X34
| in(esk5_2(X34,X35),X35) )
& ( X35 = singleton(X34)
| esk5_2(X34,X35) != X34
| ~ in(esk5_2(X34,X35),X35) )
& ( X31 != singleton(X30)
| in(X33,X31)
| X33 != X30 )
& ( X31 != singleton(X30)
| X32 = X30
| ~ in(X32,X31) ) ),
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)],[d1_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,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]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( X2 != singleton(X3)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_7,lemma,
! [X13,X14,X16,X17,X18] :
( ( ~ disjoint(X16,X17)
| ~ in(X18,X17)
| ~ in(X18,X16) )
& ( disjoint(X13,X14)
| in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X14) )
& ( disjoint(X13,X14)
| in(esk3_2(X13,X14),X13) ) ),
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_5])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l28_zfmisc_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ in(X1,singleton(X2))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( disjoint(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X11,X12] :
( disjoint(X12,X11)
| ~ disjoint(X11,X12) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[symmetry_r1_xboole_0])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
( disjoint(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
( disjoint(X1,singleton(X2))
| esk3_2(X1,singleton(X2)) = X2 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( ~ disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0)
& ~ in(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_11])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ disjoint(X1,X2)
| disjoint(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,lemma,
( in(X2,X1)
| disjoint(X1,singleton(X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,lemma,
( in(X1,X2)
| disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU154+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:53:33 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.42 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
% 0.13/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % new_bool_1 with pid 2697521 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.13/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2697524 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.52
% 0.13/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 77
% 0.13/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 27
% 0.13/0.52 % Initial clauses : 85
% 0.13/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 85
% 0.13/0.52 % Processed clauses : 575
% 0.13/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 18
% 0.13/0.52 % ...subsumed : 356
% 0.13/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 201
% 0.13/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 37
% 0.13/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.13/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Generated clauses : 1712
% 0.13/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1268
% 0.13/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Paramodulations : 1662
% 0.13/0.52 % Factorizations : 14
% 0.13/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 37
% 0.13/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 517
% 0.13/0.52 % ...of those cached : 435
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 182
% 0.13/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 39
% 0.13/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.13/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 28
% 0.13/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 113
% 0.13/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 773
% 0.13/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 1797
% 0.13/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3376
% 0.13/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3025
% 0.13/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 162
% 0.13/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 100
% 0.13/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 30
% 0.13/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 14
% 0.13/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 16669
% 0.13/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1347
% 0.13/0.52
% 0.13/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.52 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.13/0.52 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.52 % Total time : 0.057 s
% 0.13/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3952 pages
% 0.13/0.52
% 0.13/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.52 % User time : 0.057 s
% 0.13/0.52 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.52 % Total time : 0.068 s
% 0.13/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------