%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU247+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 : n001.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 02:24:27 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 2.47s 0.87s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.47s
% 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/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/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_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0) != relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0))
& relation(esk105_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,lemma,
! [X559,X560,X561] :
( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X559,X561),X560) = relation_rng_restriction(X559,relation_dom_restriction(X561,X560))
| ~ relation(X561) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[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(X1)
| relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X3) = relation_rng_restriction(X2,relation_dom_restriction(X1,X3)) ),
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,
! [X595,X596] :
( relation_restriction(X596,X595) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X595,X596),X595)
| ~ relation(X596) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[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(X1)
| relation_restriction(X1,X2) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X2) ),
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.38 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:09:14 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.43 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
% 2.47/0.87 % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.47/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.47/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 2355305 completed with status 0
% 2.47/0.87 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 2.47/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.47/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.47/0.87 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.47/0.87 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 2.47/0.87 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with pid 2355315 completed with status 0
% 2.47/0.87 % Result found by U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN
% 2.47/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.47/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.47/0.87 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.47/0.87 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 2.47/0.87 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 2.47/0.87 % Preprocessing time : 0.019 s
% 2.47/0.87 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 2.47/0.87
% 2.47/0.87 % Proof found!
% 2.47/0.87 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.47/0.87 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.47/0.88 % Parsed axioms : 305
% 2.47/0.88 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Initial clauses : 655
% 2.47/0.88 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 30
% 2.47/0.88 % Initial clauses in saturation : 625
% 2.47/0.88 % Processed clauses : 1959
% 2.47/0.88 % ...of these trivial : 21
% 2.47/0.88 % ...subsumed : 523
% 2.47/0.88 % ...remaining for further processing : 1415
% 2.47/0.88 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 120
% 2.47/0.88 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 2.47/0.88 % Backward-rewritten : 33
% 2.47/0.88 % Generated clauses : 3349
% 2.47/0.88 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2542
% 2.47/0.88 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 27
% 2.47/0.88 % Paramodulations : 3243
% 2.47/0.88 % Factorizations : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % NegExts : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Equation resolutions : 122
% 2.47/0.88 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Total rewrite steps : 1826
% 2.47/0.88 % ...of those cached : 1625
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional check models : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 2.47/0.88 % Current number of processed clauses : 722
% 2.47/0.88 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 139
% 2.47/0.88 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 2.47/0.88 % Negative unit clauses : 53
% 2.47/0.88 % Non-unit-clauses : 527
% 2.47/0.88 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1753
% 2.47/0.88 % ...number of literals in the above : 5248
% 2.47/0.88 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Current number of archived clauses : 606
% 2.47/0.88 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 168411
% 2.47/0.88 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 84457
% 2.47/0.88 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 384
% 2.47/0.88 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9879
% 2.47/0.88 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % BW rewrite match attempts : 88
% 2.47/0.88 % BW rewrite match successes : 62
% 2.47/0.88 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Condensation successes : 0
% 2.47/0.88 % Termbank termtop insertions : 83937
% 2.47/0.88 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11250
% 2.47/0.88
% 2.47/0.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.47/0.88 % User time : 0.354 s
% 2.47/0.88 % System time : 0.019 s
% 2.47/0.88 % Total time : 0.373 s
% 2.47/0.88 % Maximum resident set size: 5756 pages
% 2.47/0.88
% 2.47/0.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.47/0.88 % User time : 1.590 s
% 2.47/0.88 % System time : 0.090 s
% 2.47/0.88 % Total time : 1.680 s
% 2.47/0.88 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 2.47/0.88 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------