%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU177+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 02:24:08 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.16s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 73 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 92 ( 36 ~; 36 |; 10 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 42 ( 4 sgn 26 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(d5_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( X2 = relation_rng(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> ? [X4] : in(ordered_pair(X4,X3),X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d5_relat_1) ).
fof(t20_relat_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
=> ( in(X2,relation_rng(X3))
& in(X1,relation_dom(X3)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t20_relat_1) ).
fof(d4_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( X2 = relation_dom(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> ? [X4] : in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d4_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X39,X40,X41,X43,X44,X45,X47] :
( ( ~ relation(X39)
| X45 = relation_rng(X39)
| in(ordered_pair(esk10_2(X39,X45),esk9_2(X39,X45)),X39)
| in(esk9_2(X39,X45),X45) )
& ( ~ relation(X39)
| X45 = relation_rng(X39)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X47,esk9_2(X39,X45)),X39)
| ~ in(esk9_2(X39,X45),X45) )
& ( ~ relation(X39)
| X40 != relation_rng(X39)
| in(X43,X40)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X44,X43),X39) )
& ( ~ relation(X39)
| X40 != relation_rng(X39)
| in(ordered_pair(esk8_3(X39,X40,X41),X41),X39)
| ~ in(X41,X40) ) ),
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)],[d5_relat_1])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
=> ( in(X2,relation_rng(X3))
& in(X1,relation_dom(X3)) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t20_relat_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ relation(X3)
| X4 != relation_rng(X3)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
| in(X2,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( ~ in(esk2_0,relation_rng(esk3_0))
| ~ in(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)) )
& in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),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_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X49,X50,X51,X53,X54,X55,X57] :
( ( ~ relation(X49)
| X55 = relation_dom(X49)
| in(ordered_pair(esk12_2(X49,X55),esk13_2(X49,X55)),X49)
| in(esk12_2(X49,X55),X55) )
& ( ~ relation(X49)
| X55 = relation_dom(X49)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk12_2(X49,X55),X57),X49)
| ~ in(esk12_2(X49,X55),X55) )
& ( ~ relation(X49)
| X50 != relation_dom(X49)
| in(X53,X50)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X53,X54),X49) )
& ( ~ relation(X49)
| X50 != relation_dom(X49)
| in(ordered_pair(X51,esk11_3(X49,X50,X51)),X49)
| ~ in(X51,X50) ) ),
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)],[d4_relat_1])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X3,X1),X2)
| ~ relation(X2)
| in(X1,relation_rng(X2)) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
in(ordered_pair(esk1_0,esk2_0),esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ relation(X3)
| X4 != relation_dom(X3)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
| in(X1,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk2_0,relation_rng(esk3_0))
| ~ in(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,relation_rng(esk3_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_14,plain,
( ~ in(ordered_pair(X1,X3),X2)
| ~ relation(X2)
| in(X1,relation_dom(X2)) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ in(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU177+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:59:22 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.42 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
% 0.16/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % new_bool_3 with pid 1708845 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.57 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1708850 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.57 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.16/0.57
% 0.16/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.16/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 142
% 0.16/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 66
% 0.16/0.57 % Initial clauses : 131
% 0.16/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 131
% 0.16/0.57 % Processed clauses : 3806
% 0.16/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 33
% 0.16/0.57 % ...subsumed : 2965
% 0.16/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 808
% 0.16/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 50
% 0.16/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 39
% 0.16/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 15
% 0.16/0.57 % Generated clauses : 15576
% 0.16/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 14065
% 0.16/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.16/0.57 % Paramodulations : 15506
% 0.16/0.57 % Factorizations : 18
% 0.16/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 55
% 0.16/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 2968
% 0.16/0.57 % ...of those cached : 2683
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 730
% 0.16/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 81
% 0.16/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.16/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 197
% 0.16/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 448
% 0.16/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10272
% 0.16/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 28105
% 0.16/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 54
% 0.16/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 30012
% 0.16/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22409
% 0.16/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 912
% 0.16/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10184
% 0.16/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 69
% 0.16/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 22
% 0.16/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 143536
% 0.16/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2310
% 0.16/0.57
% 0.16/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.57 % User time : 0.117 s
% 0.16/0.57 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.16/0.57 % Total time : 0.128 s
% 0.16/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4020 pages
% 0.16/0.57
% 0.16/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.57 % User time : 0.122 s
% 0.16/0.57 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.16/0.57 % Total time : 0.137 s
% 0.16/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------