%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU230+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 : 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 02:24:22 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 17 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 6 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 11 ( 6 ~; 3 |; 1 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 27 ( 2 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t7_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,set_union2(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t7_xboole_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(d1_ordinal1,axiom,
! [X1] : succ(X1) = set_union2(X1,singleton(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_ordinal1) ).
fof(t10_ordinal1,conjecture,
! [X1] : in(X1,succ(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t10_ordinal1) ).
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,lemma,
! [X65,X66] : subset(X65,set_union2(X65,X66)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t7_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X34,X35] : set_union2(X34,X35) = set_union2(X35,X34),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_xboole_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
subset(X1,set_union2(X1,X2)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
set_union2(X1,X2) = set_union2(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X26] : succ(X26) = set_union2(X26,singleton(X26)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[d1_ordinal1]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] : in(X1,succ(X1)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t10_ordinal1]) ).
fof(c_0_11,lemma,
! [X79,X80] :
( ( subset(singleton(X79),X80)
| ~ in(X79,X80) )
& ( in(X79,X80)
| ~ subset(singleton(X79),X80) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l2_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
subset(X1,set_union2(X2,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
succ(X1) = set_union2(X1,singleton(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,succ(esk1_0)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,lemma,
( ~ subset(singleton(X1),X2)
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
subset(singleton(X1),succ(X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,succ(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,lemma,
in(X1,succ(X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU230+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.41 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:00:49 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.48 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
% 0.25/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S 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 % new_bool_3 with pid 3294072 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3294075 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 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 : 255
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 164
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses : 157
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 155
% 0.25/0.58 % Processed clauses : 119
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.25/0.58 % ...subsumed : 16
% 0.25/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 99
% 0.25/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 8
% 0.25/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.25/0.58 % Generated clauses : 133
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 64
% 0.25/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Paramodulations : 126
% 0.25/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 8
% 0.25/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 92
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of those cached : 65
% 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
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 82
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 34
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 38
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 100
% 0.25/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 284
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 120
% 0.25/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 113
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 10
% 0.25/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.25/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 18
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 15
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 12418
% 0.25/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 3387
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4152 pages
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.034 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.045 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.25/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------