%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU248+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 : n018.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 0.39s 0.87s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.39s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 41 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 43 ( 19 ~; 14 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 2 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l29_wellord1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_dom(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_dom(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l29_wellord1) ).
fof(t25_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(X1,X2)
=> ( subset(relation_rng(X1),relation_rng(X2))
& subset(relation_dom(X1),relation_dom(X2)) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t25_relat_1) ).
fof(t117_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t117_relat_1) ).
fof(dt_k8_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k8_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> subset(relation_dom(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_dom(X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l29_wellord1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_dom(relation_rng_restriction(esk79_0,esk80_0)),relation_dom(esk80_0))
& relation(esk80_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,lemma,
! [X631,X632] :
( ( ~ relation(X631)
| ~ relation(X632)
| ~ subset(X631,X632)
| subset(relation_rng(X631),relation_rng(X632)) )
& ( ~ relation(X631)
| ~ relation(X632)
| ~ subset(X631,X632)
| subset(relation_dom(X631),relation_dom(X632)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t25_relat_1])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_dom(relation_rng_restriction(esk79_0,esk80_0)),relation_dom(esk80_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| subset(relation_dom(X1),relation_dom(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk80_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_10,lemma,
! [X540,X541] :
( subset(relation_rng_restriction(X540,X541),X541)
| ~ relation(X541) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t117_relat_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ relation(relation_rng_restriction(esk79_0,esk80_0))
| ~ subset(relation_rng_restriction(esk79_0,esk80_0),esk80_0) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X391,X392] :
( relation(relation_rng_restriction(X391,X392))
| ~ relation(X392) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[dt_k8_relat_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,lemma,
~ relation(relation_rng_restriction(esk79_0,esk80_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU248+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.44 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:05:28 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.52 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
% 0.39/0.87 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.39/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.39/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1131537 completed with status 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.39/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.39/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.39/0.87 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.39/0.87 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.39/0.87 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with pid 1131547 completed with status 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Result found by U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN
% 0.39/0.87 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.39/0.87 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.39/0.87 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.39/0.87 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.39/0.87 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.39/0.87 % Preprocessing time : 0.018 s
% 0.39/0.87 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.39/0.87
% 0.39/0.87 % Proof found!
% 0.39/0.87 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.39/0.87 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.39/0.87 % Parsed axioms : 306
% 0.39/0.87 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Initial clauses : 656
% 0.39/0.87 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 30
% 0.39/0.87 % Initial clauses in saturation : 626
% 0.39/0.87 % Processed clauses : 1410
% 0.39/0.87 % ...of these trivial : 13
% 0.39/0.87 % ...subsumed : 281
% 0.39/0.87 % ...remaining for further processing : 1116
% 0.39/0.87 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 172
% 0.39/0.87 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.39/0.87 % Backward-rewritten : 37
% 0.39/0.87 % Generated clauses : 2065
% 0.39/0.87 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1112
% 0.39/0.87 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 24
% 0.39/0.87 % Paramodulations : 1909
% 0.39/0.87 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % NegExts : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Equation resolutions : 172
% 0.39/0.87 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Total rewrite steps : 3026
% 0.39/0.87 % ...of those cached : 2904
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.39/0.87 % Current number of processed clauses : 423
% 0.39/0.87 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 89
% 0.39/0.87 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.39/0.87 % Negative unit clauses : 22
% 0.39/0.87 % Non-unit-clauses : 309
% 0.39/0.87 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 887
% 0.39/0.87 % ...number of literals in the above : 2658
% 0.39/0.87 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Current number of archived clauses : 606
% 0.39/0.87 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 146358
% 0.39/0.87 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 59820
% 0.39/0.87 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 276
% 0.39/0.87 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2850
% 0.39/0.87 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % BW rewrite match attempts : 70
% 0.39/0.87 % BW rewrite match successes : 50
% 0.39/0.87 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.39/0.87 % Termbank termtop insertions : 77489
% 0.39/0.87 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11239
% 0.39/0.87
% 0.39/0.87 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.39/0.87 % User time : 0.271 s
% 0.39/0.87 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.39/0.87 % Total time : 0.284 s
% 0.39/0.87 % Maximum resident set size: 5244 pages
% 0.39/0.87
% 0.39/0.87 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.39/0.87 % User time : 0.877 s
% 0.39/0.87 % System time : 0.077 s
% 0.39/0.87 % Total time : 0.954 s
% 0.39/0.87 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.39/0.87 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------