%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU219+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 : n013.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 0.22s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 53 ( 20 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 57 ( 22 ~; 18 |; 10 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t55_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( one_to_one(X1)
=> ( relation_dom(X1) = relation_rng(function_inverse(X1))
& relation_rng(X1) = relation_dom(function_inverse(X1)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t55_funct_1) ).
fof(t37_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ( relation_dom(X1) = relation_rng(relation_inverse(X1))
& relation_rng(X1) = relation_dom(relation_inverse(X1)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t37_relat_1) ).
fof(d9_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( one_to_one(X1)
=> function_inverse(X1) = relation_inverse(X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d9_funct_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( one_to_one(X1)
=> ( relation_dom(X1) = relation_rng(function_inverse(X1))
& relation_rng(X1) = relation_dom(function_inverse(X1)) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t55_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,lemma,
! [X146] :
( ( ~ relation(X146)
| relation_dom(X146) = relation_rng(relation_inverse(X146)) )
& ( ~ relation(X146)
| relation_rng(X146) = relation_dom(relation_inverse(X146)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t37_relat_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X27] :
( function_inverse(X27) = relation_inverse(X27)
| ~ one_to_one(X27)
| ~ function(X27)
| ~ relation(X27) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d9_funct_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( relation_dom(esk1_0) != relation_rng(function_inverse(esk1_0))
| relation_rng(esk1_0) != relation_dom(function_inverse(esk1_0)) )
& one_to_one(esk1_0)
& function(esk1_0)
& relation(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_dom(X1) = relation_rng(relation_inverse(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ one_to_one(X1)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| function_inverse(X1) = relation_inverse(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( relation_dom(esk1_0) != relation_rng(function_inverse(esk1_0))
| relation_rng(esk1_0) != relation_dom(function_inverse(esk1_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ one_to_one(X1)
| relation_rng(function_inverse(X1)) = relation_dom(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
one_to_one(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
function(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_rng(X1) = relation_dom(relation_inverse(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
relation_dom(function_inverse(esk1_0)) != relation_rng(esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ one_to_one(X1)
| relation_dom(function_inverse(X1)) = relation_rng(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SEU219+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n013.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 05:59:07 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41 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
% 0.22/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % new_bool_3 with pid 81836 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.22/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 81839 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.54
% 0.22/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.54 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 231
% 0.22/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 145
% 0.22/0.54 % Initial clauses : 183
% 0.22/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.22/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 179
% 0.22/0.54 % Processed clauses : 1331
% 0.22/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 5
% 0.22/0.54 % ...subsumed : 822
% 0.22/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 504
% 0.22/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 71
% 0.22/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 11
% 0.22/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 12
% 0.22/0.54 % Generated clauses : 5684
% 0.22/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4434
% 0.22/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 14
% 0.22/0.54 % Paramodulations : 5611
% 0.22/0.54 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 73
% 0.22/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 2945
% 0.22/0.54 % ...of those cached : 2882
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 448
% 0.22/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 47
% 0.22/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 13
% 0.22/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 388
% 0.22/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3244
% 0.22/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 13122
% 0.22/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 26
% 0.22/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 42703
% 0.22/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 28627
% 0.22/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 702
% 0.22/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 389
% 0.22/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 80
% 0.22/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.22/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 80617
% 0.22/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 4105
% 0.22/0.54
% 0.22/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.54 % User time : 0.064 s
% 0.22/0.54 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.54 % Total time : 0.068 s
% 0.22/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4124 pages
% 0.22/0.54
% 0.22/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.54 % User time : 0.070 s
% 0.22/0.54 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.22/0.54 % Total time : 0.078 s
% 0.22/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.22/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------