%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU223+2 : 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 : n011.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 02:24:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 16.22s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 82 ( 19 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 27 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 106 ( 42 ~; 40 |; 14 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 9 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 3 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t70_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)))
=> apply(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1),X2) = apply(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t70_funct_1) ).
fof(t68_funct_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( function(X2)
& relation(X2) )
=> ! [X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( X2 = relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)
<=> ( ! [X4] :
( in(X4,relation_dom(X2))
=> apply(X2,X4) = apply(X3,X4) )
& relation_dom(X2) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X3),X1) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t68_funct_1) ).
fof(fc4_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( function(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2))
& relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc4_funct_1) ).
fof(dt_k7_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X1)
=> relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k7_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)))
=> apply(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1),X2) = apply(X3,X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t70_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X585,X586,X587,X588] :
( ( ~ function(X586)
| ~ relation(X586)
| ~ function(X587)
| ~ relation(X587)
| X586 = relation_dom_restriction(X587,X585)
| relation_dom(X586) != set_intersection2(relation_dom(X587),X585)
| apply(X586,esk79_3(X585,X586,X587)) != apply(X587,esk79_3(X585,X586,X587)) )
& ( ~ function(X586)
| ~ relation(X586)
| ~ function(X587)
| ~ relation(X587)
| X586 = relation_dom_restriction(X587,X585)
| relation_dom(X586) != set_intersection2(relation_dom(X587),X585)
| in(esk79_3(X585,X586,X587),relation_dom(X586)) )
& ( ~ function(X586)
| ~ relation(X586)
| ~ function(X587)
| ~ relation(X587)
| X586 != relation_dom_restriction(X587,X585)
| apply(X586,X588) = apply(X587,X588)
| ~ in(X588,relation_dom(X586)) )
& ( ~ function(X586)
| ~ relation(X586)
| ~ function(X587)
| ~ relation(X587)
| X586 != relation_dom_restriction(X587,X585)
| relation_dom(X586) = set_intersection2(relation_dom(X587),X585) ) ),
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)],[t68_funct_1])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X308,X309] :
( ( ~ function(X308)
| ~ relation(X308)
| function(relation_dom_restriction(X308,X309)) )
& ( ~ function(X308)
| ~ relation(X308)
| relation(relation_dom_restriction(X308,X309)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc4_funct_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X277,X278] :
( relation(relation_dom_restriction(X277,X278))
| ~ relation(X277) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[dt_k7_relat_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0),esk81_0) != apply(esk82_0,esk81_0)
& in(esk81_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0)))
& function(esk82_0)
& relation(esk82_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,lemma,
( ~ function(X2)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ function(X3)
| ~ relation(X3)
| X2 != relation_dom_restriction(X3,X4)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(X2))
| apply(X2,X1) = apply(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| function(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0),esk81_0) != apply(esk82_0,esk81_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
( ~ in(X3,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)))
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| apply(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2),X3) = apply(X1,X3) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk82_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
function(esk82_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
in(esk81_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[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_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU223+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/16.10 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/16.10 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/16.10 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:59:53 UTC 2026
% 0.15/16.10 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/16.10 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/16.14 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/16.14 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
% 0.21/16.22 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/16.22 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/16.22 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 82561 completed with status 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.21/16.22 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/16.22 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/16.22 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/16.22 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/16.22 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with pid 82569 completed with status 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N
% 0.21/16.22 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/16.22 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/16.22 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/16.22 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/16.22 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.21/16.22 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.21/16.22 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/16.22
% 0.21/16.22 % Proof found!
% 0.21/16.22 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/16.22 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/16.22 % Parsed axioms : 238
% 0.21/16.22 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Initial clauses : 457
% 0.21/16.22 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 26
% 0.21/16.22 % Initial clauses in saturation : 431
% 0.21/16.22 % Processed clauses : 717
% 0.21/16.22 % ...of these trivial : 8
% 0.21/16.22 % ...subsumed : 36
% 0.21/16.22 % ...remaining for further processing : 673
% 0.21/16.22 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 97
% 0.21/16.22 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Generated clauses : 971
% 0.21/16.22 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 809
% 0.21/16.22 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 26
% 0.21/16.22 % Paramodulations : 882
% 0.21/16.22 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Equation resolutions : 100
% 0.21/16.22 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Total rewrite steps : 301
% 0.21/16.22 % ...of those cached : 220
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/16.22 % Current number of processed clauses : 216
% 0.21/16.22 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 48
% 0.21/16.22 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.21/16.22 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.21/16.22 % Non-unit-clauses : 157
% 0.21/16.22 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 902
% 0.21/16.22 % ...number of literals in the above : 2687
% 0.21/16.22 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Current number of archived clauses : 384
% 0.21/16.22 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 46366
% 0.21/16.22 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 15432
% 0.21/16.22 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 59
% 0.21/16.22 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 552
% 0.21/16.22 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % BW rewrite match attempts : 69
% 0.21/16.22 % BW rewrite match successes : 50
% 0.21/16.22 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/16.22 % Termbank termtop insertions : 46993
% 0.21/16.22 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7775
% 0.21/16.22
% 0.21/16.22 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/16.22 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.21/16.22 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/16.22 % Total time : 0.059 s
% 0.21/16.22 % Maximum resident set size: 5160 pages
% 0.21/16.22
% 0.21/16.22 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/16.22 % User time : 0.228 s
% 0.21/16.22 % System time : 0.031 s
% 0.21/16.22 % Total time : 0.259 s
% 0.21/16.22 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/16.22 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------