%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CAT014-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 12:08:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% 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/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT003-0.ax',domain_codomain_composition1) ).
cnf(compose_domain,axiom,
compose(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT003-0.ax',compose_domain) ).
cnf(compose_codomain,axiom,
compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT003-0.ax',compose_codomain) ).
cnf(codomain_has_elements,axiom,
( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT003-0.ax',codomain_has_elements) ).
cnf(prove_codomain_is_idempotent,negated_conjecture,
codomain(codomain(a)) != codomain(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_codomain_is_idempotent) ).
cnf(assume_codomain_exists,hypothesis,
there_exists(codomain(a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assume_codomain_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(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
compose_domain ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
compose_codomain ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[codomain_has_elements]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
codomain(codomain(a)) != codomain(a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_codomain_is_idempotent]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ there_exists(X1)
| codomain(domain(X1)) = domain(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ there_exists(X1)
| domain(codomain(X1)) = codomain(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
| there_exists(X1) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
codomain(codomain(a)) != codomain(a),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
| codomain(codomain(X1)) = codomain(X1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
there_exists(codomain(a)),
assume_codomain_exists ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : CAT014-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:58:29 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.40 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.12/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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 2065390 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FHUSS-FFSF21-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 2065398 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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: FHUSS-FFSF21-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 : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 19
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.12/0.42 % Processed clauses : 44
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % ...subsumed : 15
% 0.12/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 29
% 0.12/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Generated clauses : 119
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 91
% 0.12/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Paramodulations : 119
% 0.12/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 14
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of those cached : 3
% 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 : 29
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 49
% 0.12/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 111
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 63
% 0.12/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 63
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 17
% 0.12/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1345
% 0.12/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 41
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------