%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU224+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 : n008.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 0.52s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.52s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 57 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 64 ( 24 ~; 23 |; 11 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 1 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l82_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)))
<=> ( in(X2,X1)
& in(X2,relation_dom(X3)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l82_funct_1) ).
fof(t86_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2)))
<=> ( in(X1,relation_dom(X3))
& in(X1,X2) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t86_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( function(X3)
& relation(X3) )
=> ( in(X2,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X1)))
<=> ( in(X2,X1)
& in(X2,relation_dom(X3)) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l82_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0)))
| in(esk2_0,esk1_0) )
& ( in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0)))
| in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)) )
& ( ~ in(esk2_0,esk1_0)
| ~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0))
| ~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0))) )
& function(esk3_0)
& relation(esk3_0) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,lemma,
! [X204,X205,X206] :
( ( ~ relation(X206)
| in(X204,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X206,X205)))
| ~ in(X204,relation_dom(X206))
| ~ in(X204,X205) )
& ( ~ relation(X206)
| ~ in(X204,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X206,X205)))
| in(X204,relation_dom(X206)) )
& ( ~ relation(X206)
| ~ in(X204,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X206,X205)))
| in(X204,X205) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t86_relat_1])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(esk2_0,esk1_0)
| ~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0))
| ~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,lemma,
( ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(X3))
| ~ in(X1,X2)
| in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,lemma,
( ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2)))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0)))
| in(esk2_0,esk1_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ in(esk2_0,esk1_0)
| ~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0)))
| in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
~ in(esk2_0,relation_dom(esk3_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
( ~ relation(X2)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X3)))
| in(X1,relation_dom(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk3_0,esk1_0))),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_7])]),c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEU224+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.43 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:01:23 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.50 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
% 0.52/0.67 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.52/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.52/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % sh5l with pid 298361 completed with status 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.52/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.52/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.52/0.67 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.52/0.67 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.52/0.67 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % SubtermCWHack with pid 298364 completed with status 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.52/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.52/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.52/0.67 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.52/0.67 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.52/0.67 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.52/0.67 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.52/0.67 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.52/0.67
% 0.52/0.67 % Proof found!
% 0.52/0.67 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.52/0.67 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.52/0.67 % Parsed axioms : 239
% 0.52/0.67 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 36
% 0.52/0.67 % Initial clauses : 393
% 0.52/0.67 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.52/0.67 % Initial clauses in saturation : 389
% 0.52/0.67 % Processed clauses : 2079
% 0.52/0.67 % ...of these trivial : 27
% 0.52/0.67 % ...subsumed : 1267
% 0.52/0.67 % ...remaining for further processing : 785
% 0.52/0.67 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 109
% 0.52/0.67 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Backward-subsumed : 23
% 0.52/0.67 % Backward-rewritten : 23
% 0.52/0.67 % Generated clauses : 5686
% 0.52/0.67 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4293
% 0.52/0.67 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 5
% 0.52/0.67 % Paramodulations : 5577
% 0.52/0.67 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.52/0.67 % NegExts : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Equation resolutions : 113
% 0.52/0.67 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Total rewrite steps : 2363
% 0.52/0.67 % ...of those cached : 2180
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.52/0.67 % Current number of processed clauses : 687
% 0.52/0.67 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 110
% 0.52/0.67 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.52/0.67 % Negative unit clauses : 104
% 0.52/0.67 % Non-unit-clauses : 469
% 0.52/0.67 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2569
% 0.52/0.67 % ...number of literals in the above : 7920
% 0.52/0.67 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Current number of archived clauses : 49
% 0.52/0.67 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 98001
% 0.52/0.67 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 70690
% 0.52/0.67 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 657
% 0.52/0.67 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6609
% 0.52/0.67 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % BW rewrite match attempts : 62
% 0.52/0.67 % BW rewrite match successes : 29
% 0.52/0.67 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.52/0.67 % Termbank termtop insertions : 76500
% 0.52/0.67 % Search garbage collected termcells : 6865
% 0.52/0.67
% 0.52/0.67 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.52/0.67 % User time : 0.123 s
% 0.52/0.67 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.52/0.67 % Total time : 0.133 s
% 0.52/0.67 % Maximum resident set size: 4904 pages
% 0.52/0.67
% 0.52/0.67 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.52/0.67 % User time : 0.134 s
% 0.52/0.67 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.52/0.67 % Total time : 0.149 s
% 0.52/0.67 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.52/0.67 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------