%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CAT011-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n012.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 12:08:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.06s 0.33s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.06s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 13 equ; 12 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(domain_codomain_composition1,axiom,
( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
| domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',domain_codomain_composition1) ).
cnf(compose_codomain,axiom,
compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',compose_codomain) ).
cnf(compose_domain,axiom,
compose(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',compose_domain) ).
cnf(domain_has_elements,axiom,
( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',domain_has_elements) ).
cnf(prove_domain_is_idempotent,negated_conjecture,
domain(domain(a)) != domain(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_domain_is_idempotent) ).
cnf(assume_domain_exists,hypothesis,
there_exists(domain(a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assume_domain_exists) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
| domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_codomain_composition1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
| domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
compose_codomain ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
compose(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
compose_domain ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_has_elements]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ there_exists(X1)
| domain(codomain(X1)) = codomain(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ there_exists(X1)
| codomain(domain(X1)) = domain(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
domain(domain(a)) != domain(a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_domain_is_idempotent]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
| domain(domain(X1)) = domain(X1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
there_exists(domain(a)),
assume_domain_exists ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
domain(domain(a)) != domain(a),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : CAT011-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.02/0.29 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.02/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.02/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.02/0.29 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.02/0.29 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.02/0.29 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.02/0.29 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.02/0.29 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:55:36 UTC 2026
% 0.02/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.02/0.30 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.02/0.32 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.02/0.32 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
% 0.06/0.33 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % new_bool_3 with pid 2518355 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.06/0.33 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.06/0.33 % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2518360 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.06/0.33 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.06/0.33 % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % Proof found!
% 0.06/0.33 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.06/0.33 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.06/0.33 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.06/0.33 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.06/0.33 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.06/0.33 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Initial clauses in saturation : 10
% 0.06/0.33 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.06/0.33 % ...remaining for further processing : 26
% 0.06/0.33 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Generated clauses : 87
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 67
% 0.06/0.33 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.06/0.33 % Paramodulations : 87
% 0.06/0.33 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % NegExts : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Total rewrite steps : 11
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of processed clauses : 26
% 0.06/0.33 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.06/0.33 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.06/0.33 % Non-unit-clauses : 17
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 43
% 0.06/0.33 % ...number of literals in the above : 104
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 43
% 0.06/0.33 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 43
% 0.06/0.33 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 8
% 0.06/0.33 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.06/0.33 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.06/0.33 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1043
% 0.06/0.33 % Search garbage collected termcells : 23
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.33 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.06/0.33 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.33 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.06/0.33 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.06/0.33 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------