%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU219+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 0.14s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 47 ( 20 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 48 ( 18 ~; 13 |; 10 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 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 : 9 ( 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(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(t37_relat_1,axiom,
! [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(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,negated_conjecture,
( ( relation_dom(esk12_0) != relation_rng(function_inverse(esk12_0))
| relation_rng(esk12_0) != relation_dom(function_inverse(esk12_0)) )
& one_to_one(esk12_0)
& function(esk12_0)
& relation(esk12_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X9] :
( function_inverse(X9) = relation_inverse(X9)
| ~ one_to_one(X9)
| ~ function(X9)
| ~ relation(X9) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d9_funct_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( relation_dom(esk12_0) != relation_rng(function_inverse(esk12_0))
| relation_rng(esk12_0) != relation_dom(function_inverse(esk12_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,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_8,negated_conjecture,
one_to_one(esk12_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk12_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
function(esk12_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X39] :
( ( ~ relation(X39)
| relation_dom(X39) = relation_rng(relation_inverse(X39)) )
& ( ~ relation(X39)
| relation_rng(X39) = relation_dom(relation_inverse(X39)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t37_relat_1])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( relation_dom(relation_inverse(esk12_0)) != relation_rng(esk12_0)
| relation_rng(relation_inverse(esk12_0)) != relation_dom(esk12_0) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_dom(X1) = relation_rng(relation_inverse(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
relation_dom(relation_inverse(esk12_0)) != relation_rng(esk12_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_rng(X1) = relation_dom(relation_inverse(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$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 : SEU219+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:54:41 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 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
% 0.14/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1582514 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 1582524 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 40
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses : 65
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 63
% 0.14/0.44 % Processed clauses : 156
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.14/0.44 % ...subsumed : 17
% 0.14/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 136
% 0.14/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 16
% 0.14/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.14/0.44 % Generated clauses : 165
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 129
% 0.14/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 0.14/0.44 % Paramodulations : 149
% 0.14/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 16
% 0.14/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 47
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of those cached : 37
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 68
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 39
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 90
% 0.14/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 325
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 68
% 0.14/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 388
% 0.14/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 297
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 16
% 0.14/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% 0.14/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4616
% 0.14/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 467
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3404 pages
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.029 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.044 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------