%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU250+1 : 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 : n002.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 0.22s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 54 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 57 ( 22 ~; 22 |; 7 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 38 ( 2 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t19_wellord1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(X1,relation_field(relation_restriction(X3,X2)))
=> ( in(X1,X2)
& in(X1,relation_field(X3)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t19_wellord1) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d3_tarski) ).
fof(t20_wellord1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X2,X1)),X1)
& subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_field(X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t20_wellord1) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X15,X16,X17] :
( ( ~ relation(X17)
| ~ in(X15,relation_field(relation_restriction(X17,X16)))
| in(X15,X16) )
& ( ~ relation(X17)
| ~ in(X15,relation_field(relation_restriction(X17,X16)))
| in(X15,relation_field(X17)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t19_wellord1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X6,X7,X8,X9,X10] :
( ( subset(X9,X10)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X9,X10),X10) )
& ( subset(X9,X10)
| in(esk3_2(X9,X10),X9) )
& ( in(X8,X7)
| ~ in(X8,X6)
| ~ subset(X6,X7) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d3_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X2,X1)),X1)
& subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_field(X2)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t20_wellord1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ relation(X2)
| ~ in(X1,relation_field(relation_restriction(X2,X3)))
| in(X1,relation_field(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ( ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),esk1_0)
| ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),relation_field(esk2_0)) )
& relation(esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| in(esk3_2(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3),relation_field(X1))
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_field(relation_restriction(X3,X2)))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),esk1_0)
| ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),relation_field(esk2_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_field(X1)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| in(esk3_2(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3),X2)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEU250+1 : 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 : n002.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 06:06:03 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.51 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
% 0.22/0.55 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % new_bool_1 with pid 2592611 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.22/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.55 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2592613 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.55 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.55 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.55
% 0.22/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.55 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 42
% 0.22/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 26
% 0.22/0.55 % Initial clauses : 21
% 0.22/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 21
% 0.22/0.55 % Processed clauses : 189
% 0.22/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % ...subsumed : 91
% 0.22/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 98
% 0.22/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 9
% 0.22/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.22/0.55 % Generated clauses : 463
% 0.22/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 372
% 0.22/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Paramodulations : 463
% 0.22/0.55 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 122
% 0.22/0.55 % ...of those cached : 106
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.55 % Current number of processed clauses : 87
% 0.22/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.22/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.22/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 75
% 0.22/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 189
% 0.22/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 628
% 0.22/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.22/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 844
% 0.22/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 726
% 0.22/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 75
% 0.22/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 33
% 0.22/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.22/0.55 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.22/0.55 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.55 % Termbank termtop insertions : 6734
% 0.22/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 370
% 0.22/0.55
% 0.22/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.55 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.22/0.55 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.55 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.22/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.22/0.55
% 0.22/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.55 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.22/0.55 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.22/0.55 % Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.22/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------