%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU037+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.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 02:23:42 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.16s 5.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 96 ( 25 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 27 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 121 ( 50 ~; 47 |; 14 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 9 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 44 ( 3 sgn 26 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t71_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,set_intersection2(relation_dom(X3),X1))
=> apply(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1),X2) = apply(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t71_funct_1) ).
fof(t68_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( function(X2)
& relation(X2) )
=> ! [X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( X2 = relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)
<=> ( ! [X4] :
( in(X4,relation_dom(X2))
=> apply(X2,X4) = apply(X3,X4) )
& relation_dom(X2) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X3),X1) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t68_funct_1) ).
fof(fc4_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( function(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2))
& relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc4_funct_1) ).
fof(dt_k7_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X1)
=> relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k7_relat_1) ).
fof(commutativity_k3_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : set_intersection2(X1,X2) = set_intersection2(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',commutativity_k3_xboole_0) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,set_intersection2(relation_dom(X3),X1))
=> apply(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1),X2) = apply(X3,X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t71_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X8,X9,X10,X11] :
( ( ~ function(X9)
| ~ relation(X9)
| ~ function(X10)
| ~ relation(X10)
| X9 = relation_dom_restriction(X10,X8)
| relation_dom(X9) != set_intersection2(relation_dom(X10),X8)
| apply(X9,esk4_3(X8,X9,X10)) != apply(X10,esk4_3(X8,X9,X10)) )
& ( ~ function(X9)
| ~ relation(X9)
| ~ function(X10)
| ~ relation(X10)
| X9 = relation_dom_restriction(X10,X8)
| relation_dom(X9) != set_intersection2(relation_dom(X10),X8)
| in(esk4_3(X8,X9,X10),relation_dom(X9)) )
& ( ~ function(X9)
| ~ relation(X9)
| ~ function(X10)
| ~ relation(X10)
| X9 != relation_dom_restriction(X10,X8)
| apply(X9,X11) = apply(X10,X11)
| ~ in(X11,relation_dom(X9)) )
& ( ~ function(X9)
| ~ relation(X9)
| ~ function(X10)
| ~ relation(X10)
| X9 != relation_dom_restriction(X10,X8)
| relation_dom(X9) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X10),X8) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t68_funct_1])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X15,X16] :
( ( ~ function(X15)
| ~ relation(X15)
| function(relation_dom_restriction(X15,X16)) )
& ( ~ function(X15)
| ~ relation(X15)
| relation(relation_dom_restriction(X15,X16)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc4_funct_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( relation(relation_dom_restriction(X13,X14))
| ~ relation(X13) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[dt_k7_relat_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0),esk2_0) != apply(esk3_0,esk2_0)
& in(esk2_0,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk3_0),esk1_0))
& function(esk3_0)
& relation(esk3_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ function(X2)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ function(X3)
| ~ relation(X3)
| X2 != relation_dom_restriction(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(X2))
| apply(X2,X1) = apply(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| function(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X31,X32] : set_intersection2(X31,X32) = set_intersection2(X32,X31),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k3_xboole_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0),esk2_0) != apply(esk3_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ in(X3,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)))
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| apply(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2),X3) = apply(X1,X3) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
function(esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ function(X2)
| ~ relation(X2)
| X1 != relation_dom_restriction(X2,X3)
| relation_dom(X1) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X2),X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk3_0),esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
set_intersection2(X1,X2) = set_intersection2(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0))),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17])]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X1),X2) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,set_intersection2(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk3_0))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_20]),c_0_23]),c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU037+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.39 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:50:38 UTC 2026
% 0.11/5.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/5.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/5.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/5.44 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
% 0.16/5.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 2562902 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.47 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.47 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2562906 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.47 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.47 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.16/5.47
% 0.16/5.47 % Proof found!
% 0.16/5.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.16/5.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/5.47 % Parsed axioms : 39
% 0.16/5.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.16/5.47 % Initial clauses : 48
% 0.16/5.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 48
% 0.16/5.47 % Processed clauses : 210
% 0.16/5.47 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.16/5.47 % ...subsumed : 99
% 0.16/5.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 109
% 0.16/5.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.16/5.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.16/5.47 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.16/5.47 % Generated clauses : 285
% 0.16/5.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 244
% 0.16/5.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 7
% 0.16/5.47 % Paramodulations : 282
% 0.16/5.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.16/5.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Total rewrite steps : 64
% 0.16/5.47 % ...of those cached : 45
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 96
% 0.16/5.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.16/5.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.16/5.47 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 0.16/5.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 67
% 0.16/5.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 74
% 0.16/5.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 308
% 0.16/5.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.16/5.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 943
% 0.16/5.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 683
% 0.16/5.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 90
% 0.16/5.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 24
% 0.16/5.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.16/5.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 0.16/5.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/5.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5784
% 0.16/5.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 495
% 0.16/5.47
% 0.16/5.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.47 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.16/5.47 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.16/5.47 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.16/5.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3664 pages
% 0.16/5.47
% 0.16/5.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.47 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.16/5.47 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.16/5.47 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.16/5.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.16/5.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------