%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE_E---1.7
% Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v9.2.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/lemma_parallel_prover %s --lemma-prover /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cse --final-prover /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --proof-time %d --global-time-limit %d
% Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Tue May 5 05:11:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 2.05s 2.01s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.05s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 8 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn 14 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t18_wellord1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t18_wellord1) ).
fof(t140_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X3),X2) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t140_relat_1) ).
fof(t17_wellord1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t17_wellord1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t18_wellord1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( relation(esk105_0)
& relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0) != relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X1204,X1205,X1206] :
( ~ relation(X1206)
| relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1204,X1206),X1205) = relation_rng_restriction(X1204,relation_dom_restriction(X1206,X1205)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t140_relat_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0) != relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X3) = relation_rng_restriction(X2,relation_dom_restriction(X1,X3))
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk105_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_9,lemma,
! [X1240,X1241] :
( ~ relation(X1241)
| relation_restriction(X1241,X1240) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1240,X1241),X1240) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t17_wellord1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,esk105_0),esk104_0) != relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
( relation_restriction(X1,X2) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X2)
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11 % Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v9.2.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.11 % Command : /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/lemma_parallel_prover %s --lemma-prover /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cse --final-prover /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --proof-time %d --global-time-limit %d
% 0.15/0.32 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.32 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.32 % DateTime : Tue May 5 02:52:01 EDT 2026
% 0.15/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.33 % start to proof: theBenchmark
% 2.05/2.01 % Version : CSE_E---1.7
% 2.05/2.01 % Problem : theBenchmark.p
% 2.05/2.01 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark.p
% 2.05/2.01 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.05/2.01 % Total time : 1.426s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------