%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU217+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 : n007.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 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% 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(t34_funct_1,lemma,
! [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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t34_funct_1) ).
fof(dt_k6_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1] : relation(identity_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k6_relat_1) ).
fof(fc2_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( function(identity_relation(X1))
& relation(identity_relation(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc2_funct_1) ).
fof(t35_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( in(X2,X1)
=> apply(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t35_funct_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,lemma,
! [X469,X470,X471] :
( ( ~ function(X470)
| ~ relation(X470)
| X470 = identity_relation(X469)
| relation_dom(X470) != X469
| apply(X470,esk66_2(X469,X470)) != esk66_2(X469,X470) )
& ( ~ function(X470)
| ~ relation(X470)
| X470 = identity_relation(X469)
| relation_dom(X470) != X469
| in(esk66_2(X469,X470),X469) )
& ( ~ function(X470)
| ~ relation(X470)
| X470 != identity_relation(X469)
| apply(X470,X471) = X471
| ~ in(X471,X469) )
& ( ~ function(X470)
| ~ relation(X470)
| X470 != identity_relation(X469)
| relation_dom(X470) = X469 ) ),
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_5,plain,
! [X263] : relation(identity_relation(X263)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[dt_k6_relat_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X286] :
( function(identity_relation(X286))
& relation(identity_relation(X286)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fc2_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( in(X2,X1)
=> apply(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t35_funct_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,lemma,
( ~ function(X3)
| ~ relation(X3)
| X3 != identity_relation(X2)
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| apply(X3,X1) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
relation(identity_relation(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]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( apply(identity_relation(esk67_0),esk68_0) != esk68_0
& in(esk68_0,esk67_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
( ~ 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_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk68_0,esk67_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
apply(identity_relation(esk67_0),esk68_0) != esk68_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU217+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36 % 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 05:57:06 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41 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
% 0.21/0.50 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 329622 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.50 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.50 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 329630 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.50 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.50 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.50 % Parsed axioms : 222
% 0.21/0.50 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Initial clauses : 406
% 0.21/0.50 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 24
% 0.21/0.50 % Initial clauses in saturation : 382
% 0.21/0.50 % Processed clauses : 499
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of these trivial : 8
% 0.21/0.50 % ...subsumed : 29
% 0.21/0.50 % ...remaining for further processing : 462
% 0.21/0.50 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 77
% 0.21/0.50 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Generated clauses : 101
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 83
% 0.21/0.50 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 16
% 0.21/0.50 % Paramodulations : 31
% 0.21/0.50 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Equation resolutions : 77
% 0.21/0.50 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Total rewrite steps : 82
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of those cached : 38
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of processed clauses : 54
% 0.21/0.50 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 31
% 0.21/0.50 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.21/0.50 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 304
% 0.21/0.50 % ...number of literals in the above : 868
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of archived clauses : 342
% 0.21/0.50 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 29984
% 0.21/0.50 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11065
% 0.21/0.50 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 42
% 0.21/0.50 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 202
% 0.21/0.50 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % BW rewrite match attempts : 41
% 0.21/0.50 % BW rewrite match successes : 24
% 0.21/0.50 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Termbank termtop insertions : 33511
% 0.21/0.50 % Search garbage collected termcells : 6875
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.21/0.50 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Total time : 0.058 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 4880 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 % User time : 0.132 s
% 0.21/0.50 % System time : 0.035 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Total time : 0.167 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------