%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU062+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 : n017.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 02:23:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 50 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 55 ( 22 ~; 16 |; 7 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 30 ( 0 sgn 21 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t143_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( ! [X3] :
~ ( relation_inverse_image(X2,singleton(X3)) = empty_set
& in(X3,X1) )
=> subset(X1,relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t143_funct_1) ).
fof(t142_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( in(X1,relation_rng(X2))
<=> relation_inverse_image(X2,singleton(X1)) != empty_set ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t142_funct_1) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d3_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( ! [X3] :
~ ( relation_inverse_image(X2,singleton(X3)) = empty_set
& in(X3,X1) )
=> subset(X1,relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t143_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( in(X1,relation_rng(X2))
<=> relation_inverse_image(X2,singleton(X1)) != empty_set ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t142_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X6] :
( ~ subset(esk1_0,relation_rng(esk2_0))
& ( relation_inverse_image(esk2_0,singleton(X6)) != empty_set
| ~ in(X6,esk1_0) )
& relation(esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X19,X20] :
( ( ~ relation(X20)
| in(X19,relation_rng(X20))
| relation_inverse_image(X20,singleton(X19)) = empty_set )
& ( ~ relation(X20)
| relation_inverse_image(X20,singleton(X19)) != empty_set
| ~ in(X19,relation_rng(X20)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] :
( ( subset(X10,X11)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X10,X11),X11) )
& ( subset(X10,X11)
| in(esk3_2(X10,X11),X10) )
& ( in(X9,X8)
| ~ in(X9,X7)
| ~ subset(X7,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(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d3_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( relation_inverse_image(esk2_0,singleton(X1)) != empty_set
| ~ in(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| in(X2,relation_rng(X1))
| relation_inverse_image(X1,singleton(X2)) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,esk1_0)
| in(X1,relation_rng(esk2_0)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,relation_rng(esk2_0)),esk1_0)
| subset(X1,relation_rng(esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(esk1_0,relation_rng(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU062+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:43:56 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.46 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.46 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
% 0.15/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % new_bool_1 with pid 1559913 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1559915 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 34
% 0.15/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.15/0.52 % Initial clauses : 39
% 0.15/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 39
% 0.15/0.52 % Processed clauses : 132
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.15/0.52 % ...subsumed : 40
% 0.15/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 91
% 0.15/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.15/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.15/0.52 % Generated clauses : 164
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 136
% 0.15/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Paramodulations : 164
% 0.15/0.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 28
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 81
% 0.15/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.15/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 12
% 0.15/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 56
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 39
% 0.15/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 124
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.15/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 279
% 0.15/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 216
% 0.15/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.15/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 93
% 0.15/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.15/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.15/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3732
% 0.15/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 420
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.52 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.52 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3656 pages
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.52 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.52 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------