%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU161+1 : 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 : n011.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 02:24:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 21 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 14 ( 7 ~; 3 |; 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 : 18 ( 0 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t46_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( in(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(singleton(X1),X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t46_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(commutativity_k2_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : set_union2(X1,X2) = set_union2(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_k2_xboole_0) ).
fof(l23_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( in(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(singleton(X1),X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l23_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( in(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(singleton(X1),X2) = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t46_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( set_union2(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_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_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X5,X6] : set_union2(X5,X6) = set_union2(X6,X5),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_xboole_0]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X8,X9] :
( set_union2(singleton(X8),X9) = X9
| ~ in(X8,X9) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l23_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
set_union2(X1,X2) = set_union2(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| set_union2(singleton(X1),X2) = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(esk2_0,singleton(esk1_0)) != esk2_0,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ in(X2,X1)
| set_union2(X1,singleton(X2)) = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU161+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:53:55 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.40 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
% 0.15/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1115108 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.42 % Search class: FHHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1115113 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.42 % Search class: FHHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.42
% 0.15/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.15/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.15/0.42 % Processed clauses : 9
% 0.15/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.15/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.42 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.15/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.15/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.15/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.15/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.15/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.15/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.15/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.15/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.15/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 331
% 0.15/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 53
% 0.15/0.42
% 0.15/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.42 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.42 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.15/0.42
% 0.15/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.42 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.42 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------