%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU158+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 : n009.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 02:24:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 10 ~; 8 |; 2 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t37_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(singleton(X1),X2)
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t37_zfmisc_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_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(singleton(X1),X2)
<=> in(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t37_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| subset(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) )
& ( ~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| ~ subset(singleton(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_2])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,lemma,
! [X36,X37] :
( ( subset(singleton(X36),X37)
| ~ in(X36,X37) )
& ( in(X36,X37)
| ~ subset(singleton(X36),X37) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l2_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| ~ subset(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,lemma,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| subset(singleton(X1),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| subset(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,lemma,
( ~ subset(singleton(X1),X2)
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
subset(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SEU158+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.35 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:53:27 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.40 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
% 0.12/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % new_bool_1 with pid 990231 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 990233 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 88
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 35
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses : 85
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 85
% 0.12/0.42 % Processed clauses : 56
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.12/0.42 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.12/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 46
% 0.12/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% 0.12/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Generated clauses : 68
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 24
% 0.12/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Paramodulations : 61
% 0.12/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 7
% 0.12/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 42
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of those cached : 23
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 37
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 10
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 51
% 0.12/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 135
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11
% 0.12/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.12/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.12/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 22
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 17
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5476
% 0.12/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1392
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3964 pages
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------