%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU010+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 02:23:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 17 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 40 ( 16 ~; 12 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 1 sgn 13 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t42_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1
& relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t42_funct_1) ).
fof(t77_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(relation_dom(X2),X1)
=> relation_composition(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t77_relat_1) ).
fof(reflexivity_r1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reflexivity_r1_tarski) ).
fof(t79_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(relation_rng(X2),X1)
=> relation_composition(X2,identity_relation(X1)) = X2 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t79_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1
& relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t42_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X15,X16] :
( relation_composition(identity_relation(X15),X16) = X16
| ~ subset(relation_dom(X16),X15)
| ~ relation(X16) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t77_relat_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X32] : subset(X32,X32),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ( relation_composition(esk1_0,identity_relation(relation_rng(esk1_0))) != esk1_0
| relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(esk1_0)),esk1_0) != esk1_0 )
& function(esk1_0)
& relation(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ subset(relation_dom(X1),X2)
| ~ relation(X1)
| relation_composition(identity_relation(X2),X1) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
subset(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X17,X18] :
( relation_composition(X18,identity_relation(X17)) = X18
| ~ subset(relation_rng(X18),X17)
| ~ relation(X18) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t79_relat_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( relation_composition(esk1_0,identity_relation(relation_rng(esk1_0))) != esk1_0
| relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(esk1_0)),esk1_0) != esk1_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ subset(relation_rng(X1),X2)
| ~ relation(X1)
| relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(X2)) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
relation_composition(esk1_0,identity_relation(relation_rng(esk1_0))) != esk1_0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU010+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.47 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:46:41 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.48 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.48 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.55 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
% 0.23/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % new_bool_1 with pid 1099820 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.23/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.59 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1099822 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.59 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/0.59
% 0.23/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.59 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 38
% 0.23/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.23/0.59 % Initial clauses : 45
% 0.23/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 45
% 0.23/0.59 % Processed clauses : 100
% 0.23/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.23/0.59 % ...subsumed : 27
% 0.23/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 72
% 0.23/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.23/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.23/0.59 % Generated clauses : 168
% 0.23/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 120
% 0.23/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Paramodulations : 168
% 0.23/0.59 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 45
% 0.23/0.59 % ...of those cached : 31
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 67
% 0.23/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 16
% 0.23/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 47
% 0.23/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 55
% 0.23/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 224
% 0.23/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 674
% 0.23/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 618
% 0.23/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 27
% 0.23/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 33
% 0.23/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.23/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.23/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4204
% 0.23/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 427
% 0.23/0.59
% 0.23/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.59 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.23/0.59 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.23/0.59 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.23/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3916 pages
% 0.23/0.59
% 0.23/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.59 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.23/0.59 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.23/0.59 % Total time : 0.029 s
% 0.23/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------