%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU198+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 02:28:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 1.48s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.48s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 45 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 48 ( 18 ~; 18 |; 6 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 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 : 30 ( 0 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t115_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(X1,relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X3)))
<=> ( in(X1,relation_rng(X3))
& in(X1,X2) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t115_relat_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(t116_relat_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t116_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,lemma,
! [X51,X52,X53] :
( ( ~ relation(X53)
| in(X51,relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X52,X53)))
| ~ in(X51,relation_rng(X53))
| ~ in(X51,X52) )
& ( ~ relation(X53)
| ~ in(X51,relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X52,X53)))
| in(X51,relation_rng(X53)) )
& ( ~ relation(X53)
| ~ in(X51,relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X52,X53)))
| in(X51,X52) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t115_relat_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X11,X12,X13,X14,X15] :
( ( subset(X14,X15)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X14,X15),X15) )
& ( subset(X14,X15)
| in(esk3_2(X14,X15),X14) )
& ( in(X13,X12)
| ~ in(X13,X11)
| ~ subset(X11,X12) ) ),
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])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t116_relat_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,lemma,
( ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X3)))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,esk2_0)),esk1_0)
& relation(esk2_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_9,plain,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ relation(X2)
| in(esk3_2(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),X3),X1)
| subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,esk2_0)),esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
( ~ relation(X2)
| subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU198+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:59:54 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 1.48/0.69 % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.48/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.48/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % new_bool_1 with pid 1516009 completed with status 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 1.48/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.48/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.48/0.69 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.48/0.69 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 1.48/0.69 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1516012 completed with status 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 1.48/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.48/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.48/0.69 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.48/0.69 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 1.48/0.69 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.48/0.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 1.48/0.69 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 1.48/0.69
% 1.48/0.69 % Proof found!
% 1.48/0.69 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.48/0.69 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.48/0.69 % Parsed axioms : 191
% 1.48/0.69 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 125
% 1.48/0.69 % Initial clauses : 124
% 1.48/0.69 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 1.48/0.69 % Initial clauses in saturation : 122
% 1.48/0.69 % Processed clauses : 3258
% 1.48/0.69 % ...of these trivial : 12
% 1.48/0.69 % ...subsumed : 2493
% 1.48/0.69 % ...remaining for further processing : 753
% 1.48/0.69 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 44
% 1.48/0.69 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Backward-subsumed : 13
% 1.48/0.69 % Backward-rewritten : 31
% 1.48/0.69 % Generated clauses : 16599
% 1.48/0.69 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 14788
% 1.48/0.69 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 1.48/0.69 % Paramodulations : 16535
% 1.48/0.69 % Factorizations : 15
% 1.48/0.69 % NegExts : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Equation resolutions : 46
% 1.48/0.69 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Total rewrite steps : 5199
% 1.48/0.69 % ...of those cached : 5003
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional check models : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 1.48/0.69 % Current number of processed clauses : 687
% 1.48/0.69 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 48
% 1.48/0.69 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Negative unit clauses : 46
% 1.48/0.69 % Non-unit-clauses : 593
% 1.48/0.69 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 11475
% 1.48/0.69 % ...number of literals in the above : 41635
% 1.48/0.69 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Current number of archived clauses : 48
% 1.48/0.69 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 75902
% 1.48/0.69 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 51182
% 1.48/0.69 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1537
% 1.48/0.69 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3532
% 1.48/0.69 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % BW rewrite match attempts : 111
% 1.48/0.69 % BW rewrite match successes : 13
% 1.48/0.69 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Condensation successes : 0
% 1.48/0.69 % Termbank termtop insertions : 201851
% 1.48/0.69 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2789
% 1.48/0.69
% 1.48/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.48/0.69 % User time : 0.239 s
% 1.48/0.69 % System time : 0.010 s
% 1.48/0.69 % Total time : 0.249 s
% 1.48/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 3820 pages
% 1.48/0.69
% 1.48/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.48/0.69 % User time : 0.244 s
% 1.48/0.69 % System time : 0.014 s
% 1.48/0.69 % Total time : 0.259 s
% 1.48/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 1.48/0.69 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------