%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU435+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n019.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 02:25:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 19 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-6 aty)
% Number of variables : 30 ( 0 sgn 24 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t36_relset_2,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( m1_subset_1(X3,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(X1,X2))))
=> ! [X4,X5,X6] :
( m1_subset_1(X6,k1_zfmisc_1(X4))
=> m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(X5))) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t36_relset_2) ).
fof(s8_domain_1__e1_46__relset_2,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( m1_subset_1(X6,k1_zfmisc_1(X4))
& m1_subset_1(X3,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(X1,X2)))) )
=> m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(X5))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',s8_domain_1__e1_46__relset_2) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( m1_subset_1(X3,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(X1,X2))))
=> ! [X4,X5,X6] :
( m1_subset_1(X6,k1_zfmisc_1(X4))
=> m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(X5))) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t36_relset_2]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0,esk4_0,esk5_0,esk6_0),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(esk5_0)))
& m1_subset_1(esk6_0,k1_zfmisc_1(esk4_0))
& m1_subset_1(esk3_0,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(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,plain,
! [X31,X32,X33,X34,X35,X36] :
( m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(X31,X32,X33,X34,X35,X36),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(X35)))
| ~ m1_subset_1(X36,k1_zfmisc_1(X34))
| ~ m1_subset_1(X33,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(X31,X32)))) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[s8_domain_1__e1_46__relset_2])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0,esk4_0,esk5_0,esk6_0),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(esk5_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ m1_subset_1(X4,k1_zfmisc_1(X5))
| ~ m1_subset_1(X1,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(X2,X3))))
| m1_subset_1(a_6_0_relset_2(X2,X3,X1,X5,X6,X4),k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(X6))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
m1_subset_1(esk3_0,k1_zfmisc_1(k1_zfmisc_1(k2_zfmisc_1(esk1_0,esk2_0)))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
m1_subset_1(esk6_0,k1_zfmisc_1(esk4_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU435+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.45 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:29:35 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.54 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
% 0.24/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % new_bool_3 with pid 1908287 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1908291 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 51
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 27
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses : 34
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 34
% 0.24/0.60 % Processed clauses : 132
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...subsumed : 36
% 0.24/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 96
% 0.24/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Generated clauses : 209
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 181
% 0.24/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Paramodulations : 206
% 0.24/0.60 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 23
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of those cached : 15
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 91
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 70
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 80
% 0.24/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 247
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.24/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 600
% 0.24/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 464
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 31
% 0.24/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5155
% 0.24/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 647
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3428 pages
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.033 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------