%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU247+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 : n020.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 02:28:43 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.88s 0.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.88s
% 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(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(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(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,
! [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_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_restriction(X1,X2) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X2) ),
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,
! [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_10,negated_conjecture,
relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)) != relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(esk104_0,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_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X3) = relation_rng_restriction(X2,relation_dom_restriction(X1,X3)) ),
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
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.44 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:04:32 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.51 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
% 0.88/0.89 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.88/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.88/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 2165496 completed with status 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.88/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.88/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.88/0.89 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.88/0.89 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.88/0.89 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with pid 2165505 completed with status 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Result found by G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y
% 0.88/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.88/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.88/0.89 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.88/0.89 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.88/0.89 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.88/0.89 % Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% 0.88/0.89 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.88/0.89
% 0.88/0.89 % Proof found!
% 0.88/0.89 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.88/0.89 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.88/0.89 % Parsed axioms : 305
% 0.88/0.89 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Initial clauses : 655
% 0.88/0.89 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 30
% 0.88/0.89 % Initial clauses in saturation : 625
% 0.88/0.89 % Processed clauses : 1342
% 0.88/0.89 % ...of these trivial : 20
% 0.88/0.89 % ...subsumed : 66
% 0.88/0.89 % ...remaining for further processing : 1256
% 0.88/0.89 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 134
% 0.88/0.89 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Backward-rewritten : 17
% 0.88/0.89 % Generated clauses : 8617
% 0.88/0.89 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8286
% 0.88/0.89 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 25
% 0.88/0.89 % Paramodulations : 8480
% 0.88/0.89 % Factorizations : 14
% 0.88/0.89 % NegExts : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Equation resolutions : 139
% 0.88/0.89 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Total rewrite steps : 1076
% 0.88/0.89 % ...of those cached : 930
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.88/0.89 % Current number of processed clauses : 586
% 0.88/0.89 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 84
% 0.88/0.89 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.88/0.89 % Negative unit clauses : 13
% 0.88/0.89 % Non-unit-clauses : 486
% 0.88/0.89 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8113
% 0.88/0.89 % ...number of literals in the above : 32557
% 0.88/0.89 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Current number of archived clauses : 583
% 0.88/0.89 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 186116
% 0.88/0.89 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 66122
% 0.88/0.89 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 69
% 0.88/0.89 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9324
% 0.88/0.89 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % BW rewrite match attempts : 60
% 0.88/0.89 % BW rewrite match successes : 46
% 0.88/0.89 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.88/0.89 % Termbank termtop insertions : 192037
% 0.88/0.89 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11250
% 0.88/0.89
% 0.88/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.88/0.89 % User time : 0.305 s
% 0.88/0.89 % System time : 0.025 s
% 0.88/0.89 % Total time : 0.330 s
% 0.88/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 5756 pages
% 0.88/0.89
% 0.88/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.88/0.89 % User time : 1.340 s
% 0.88/0.89 % System time : 0.089 s
% 0.88/0.89 % Total time : 1.429 s
% 0.88/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.88/0.89 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------