%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU217+1 : 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 : n012.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 02:24:18 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.10s 11.24s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 49 ( 19 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 19 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 55 ( 22 ~; 20 |; 8 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 2 sgn 14 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t35_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( in(X2,X1)
=> apply(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t35_funct_1) ).
fof(t34_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( function(X2)
& relation(X2) )
=> ( X2 = identity_relation(X1)
<=> ( ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> apply(X2,X3) = X3 )
& relation_dom(X2) = X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t34_funct_1) ).
fof(fc2_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( function(identity_relation(X1))
& relation(identity_relation(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc2_funct_1) ).
fof(dt_k6_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1] : relation(identity_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k6_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( in(X2,X1)
=> apply(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t35_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X6,X7,X8] :
( ( ~ function(X7)
| ~ relation(X7)
| X7 = identity_relation(X6)
| relation_dom(X7) != X6
| apply(X7,esk3_2(X6,X7)) != esk3_2(X6,X7) )
& ( ~ function(X7)
| ~ relation(X7)
| X7 = identity_relation(X6)
| relation_dom(X7) != X6
| in(esk3_2(X6,X7),X6) )
& ( ~ function(X7)
| ~ relation(X7)
| X7 != identity_relation(X6)
| apply(X7,X8) = X8
| ~ in(X8,X6) )
& ( ~ function(X7)
| ~ relation(X7)
| X7 != identity_relation(X6)
| relation_dom(X7) = X6 ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t34_funct_1])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X11] :
( function(identity_relation(X11))
& relation(identity_relation(X11)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fc2_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X10] : relation(identity_relation(X10)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[dt_k6_relat_1]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( apply(identity_relation(esk1_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0
& in(esk2_0,esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ function(X3)
| ~ relation(X3)
| X3 != identity_relation(X2)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| apply(X3,X1) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
function(identity_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
relation(identity_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
apply(identity_relation(esk1_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ in(X2,X1)
| apply(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]),c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : SEU217+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.05/11.16 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.05/11.16 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.05/11.16 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.05/11.16 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.05/11.16 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.05/11.16 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.05/11.16 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.05/11.16 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:59:07 UTC 2026
% 0.05/11.17 % CPUTime :
% 0.05/11.17 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/11.20 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/11.20 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
% 0.10/11.24 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/11.24 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/11.24 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % new_bool_1 with pid 1700377 completed with status 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.10/11.24 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/11.24 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/11.24 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/11.24 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/11.24 % partial match(1): FGHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/11.24 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1700385 completed with status 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/11.24 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/11.24 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/11.24 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/11.24 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/11.24 % partial match(1): FGHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/11.24 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/11.24 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/11.24 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.10/11.24
% 0.10/11.24 % Proof found!
% 0.10/11.24 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/11.24 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/11.24 % Parsed axioms : 28
% 0.10/11.24 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 12
% 0.10/11.24 % Initial clauses : 25
% 0.10/11.24 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Initial clauses in saturation : 25
% 0.10/11.24 % Processed clauses : 79
% 0.10/11.24 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.10/11.24 % ...subsumed : 29
% 0.10/11.24 % ...remaining for further processing : 49
% 0.10/11.24 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.10/11.24 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.10/11.24 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.10/11.24 % Generated clauses : 97
% 0.10/11.24 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 77
% 0.10/11.24 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Paramodulations : 93
% 0.10/11.24 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.10/11.24 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Total rewrite steps : 36
% 0.10/11.24 % ...of those cached : 26
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/11.24 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.10/11.24 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.10/11.24 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.10/11.24 % Non-unit-clauses : 23
% 0.10/11.24 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 16
% 0.10/11.24 % ...number of literals in the above : 61
% 0.10/11.24 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.10/11.24 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 214
% 0.10/11.24 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 211
% 0.10/11.24 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 29
% 0.10/11.24 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 18
% 0.10/11.24 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.10/11.24 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.10/11.24 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/11.24 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2040
% 0.10/11.24 % Search garbage collected termcells : 278
% 0.10/11.24
% 0.10/11.24 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/11.24 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/11.24 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.10/11.24 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.10/11.24 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.10/11.24
% 0.10/11.24 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/11.24 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.10/11.24 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.10/11.24 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.10/11.24 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/11.24 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------