%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU200+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 : n001.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 02:24:13 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.60s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.60s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 41 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 43 ( 19 ~; 14 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 2 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t118_relat_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_rng(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t118_relat_1) ).
fof(t25_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(X1,X2)
=> ( subset(relation_rng(X1),relation_rng(X2))
& subset(relation_dom(X1),relation_dom(X2)) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t25_relat_1) ).
fof(t117_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t117_relat_1) ).
fof(dt_k8_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k8_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_rng(X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t118_relat_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(esk54_0,esk55_0)),relation_rng(esk55_0))
& relation(esk55_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_6,lemma,
! [X374,X375] :
( ( ~ relation(X374)
| ~ relation(X375)
| ~ subset(X374,X375)
| subset(relation_rng(X374),relation_rng(X375)) )
& ( ~ relation(X374)
| ~ relation(X375)
| ~ subset(X374,X375)
| subset(relation_dom(X374),relation_dom(X375)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t25_relat_1])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_rng(relation_rng_restriction(esk54_0,esk55_0)),relation_rng(esk55_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| subset(relation_rng(X1),relation_rng(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk55_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_10,lemma,
! [X340,X341] :
( subset(relation_rng_restriction(X340,X341),X341)
| ~ relation(X341) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t117_relat_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ relation(relation_rng_restriction(esk54_0,esk55_0))
| ~ subset(relation_rng_restriction(esk54_0,esk55_0),esk55_0) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X245,X246] :
( relation(relation_rng_restriction(X245,X246))
| ~ relation(X246) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[dt_k8_relat_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
~ relation(relation_rng_restriction(esk54_0,esk55_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SEU200+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 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
% 0.60/0.51 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.60/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.60/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 2344638 completed with status 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.60/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.60/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.60/0.51 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.60/0.51 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.60/0.51 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with pid 2344657 completed with status 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Result found by U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN
% 0.60/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.60/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.60/0.51 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.60/0.51 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.60/0.51 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.60/0.51 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.60/0.51 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.60/0.51
% 0.60/0.51 % Proof found!
% 0.60/0.51 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.60/0.51 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.60/0.51 % Parsed axioms : 193
% 0.60/0.51 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Initial clauses : 345
% 0.60/0.51 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 21
% 0.60/0.51 % Initial clauses in saturation : 324
% 0.60/0.51 % Processed clauses : 750
% 0.60/0.51 % ...of these trivial : 11
% 0.60/0.51 % ...subsumed : 142
% 0.60/0.51 % ...remaining for further processing : 597
% 0.60/0.51 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 105
% 0.60/0.51 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.60/0.51 % Backward-rewritten : 12
% 0.60/0.51 % Generated clauses : 1369
% 0.60/0.51 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 740
% 0.60/0.51 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 15
% 0.60/0.51 % Paramodulations : 1271
% 0.60/0.51 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % NegExts : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Equation resolutions : 105
% 0.60/0.51 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Total rewrite steps : 2137
% 0.60/0.51 % ...of those cached : 2037
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.60/0.51 % Current number of processed clauses : 236
% 0.60/0.51 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 60
% 0.60/0.51 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.60/0.51 % Negative unit clauses : 21
% 0.60/0.51 % Non-unit-clauses : 152
% 0.60/0.51 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 604
% 0.60/0.51 % ...number of literals in the above : 1617
% 0.60/0.51 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Current number of archived clauses : 309
% 0.60/0.51 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 49087
% 0.60/0.51 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22583
% 0.60/0.51 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 138
% 0.60/0.51 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2045
% 0.60/0.51 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % BW rewrite match attempts : 56
% 0.60/0.51 % BW rewrite match successes : 41
% 0.60/0.51 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.60/0.51 % Termbank termtop insertions : 43988
% 0.60/0.51 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5776
% 0.60/0.51
% 0.60/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.60/0.51 % User time : 0.080 s
% 0.60/0.51 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.60/0.51 % Total time : 0.090 s
% 0.60/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 4848 pages
% 0.60/0.51
% 0.60/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.60/0.51 % User time : 0.343 s
% 0.60/0.51 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.60/0.51 % Total time : 0.377 s
% 0.60/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.60/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------