%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE_E---1.7
% Problem : SEU040+1 : TPTP v9.2.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/lemma_parallel_prover %s --lemma-prover /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cse --final-prover /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --proof-time %d --global-time-limit %d
% Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Tue May 5 05:10:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 1.28s 1.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 26 ( 10 ~; 6 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 2 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t76_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( relation(X2)
& function(X2) )
=> ( subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))
& subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t76_funct_1) ).
fof(t99_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t99_relat_1) ).
fof(t89_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t89_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( relation(X2)
& function(X2) )
=> ( subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))
& subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t76_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( relation(esk13_0)
& function(esk13_0)
& ( ~ subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_dom(esk13_0))
| ~ subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0)) ) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X111,X112] :
( ~ relation(X112)
| subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X112,X111)),relation_rng(X112)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t99_relat_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_dom(esk13_0))
| ~ subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_rng(X1))
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk13_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X109,X110] :
( ~ relation(X110)
| subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X110,X109)),relation_dom(X110)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t89_relat_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_dom(esk13_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_dom(X1))
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SEU040+1 : TPTP v9.2.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/lemma_parallel_prover %s --lemma-prover /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cse --final-prover /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --proof-time %d --global-time-limit %d
% 0.14/0.33 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.33 % DateTime : Tue May 5 02:42:43 EDT 2026
% 0.14/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.34 % start to proof: theBenchmark
% 1.28/1.72 % Version : CSE_E---1.7
% 1.28/1.72 % Problem : theBenchmark.p
% 1.28/1.72 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark.p
% 1.28/1.72 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.28/1.72 % Total time : 1.369s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------