%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU250+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 : n019.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 28.40s 4.71s
% Output : CNFRefutation 28.40s
% 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,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> ( in(X1,relation_field(relation_restriction(X3,X2)))
=> ( in(X1,X2)
& in(X1,relation_field(X3)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t19_wellord1) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t20_wellord1) ).
fof(c_0_3,lemma,
! [X603,X604,X605] :
( ( ~ relation(X605)
| ~ in(X603,relation_field(relation_restriction(X605,X604)))
| in(X603,X604) )
& ( ~ relation(X605)
| ~ in(X603,relation_field(relation_restriction(X605,X604)))
| in(X603,relation_field(X605)) ) ),
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,
! [X222,X223,X224,X225,X226] :
( ( subset(X225,X226)
| ~ in(esk44_2(X225,X226),X226) )
& ( subset(X225,X226)
| in(esk44_2(X225,X226),X225) )
& ( in(X224,X223)
| ~ in(X224,X222)
| ~ subset(X222,X223) ) ),
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,lemma,
( ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_field(relation_restriction(X3,X2)))
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk44_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ( ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),esk104_0)
| ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),relation_field(esk105_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_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ in(esk44_2(X1,X2),X2)
| subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| in(esk44_2(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3),X2)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
( ~ 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_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),esk104_0)
| ~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),relation_field(esk105_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk105_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| in(esk44_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_11,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(esk105_0,esk104_0)),relation_field(esk105_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,lemma,
( ~ relation(X1)
| subset(relation_field(relation_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_field(X1)) ),
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU250+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.45 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:03:20 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.52 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
% 28.40/4.71 % Version: 3.5.1
% 28.40/4.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 28.40/4.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1841079 completed with status 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 28.40/4.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 28.40/4.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 28.40/4.71 % No SInE strategy applied
% 28.40/4.71 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 28.40/4.71 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1841087 completed with status 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 28.40/4.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 28.40/4.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 28.40/4.71 % No SInE strategy applied
% 28.40/4.71 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 28.40/4.71 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 28.40/4.71 % Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 28.40/4.71 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 28.40/4.71
% 28.40/4.71 % Proof found!
% 28.40/4.71 % SZS status Theorem
% 28.40/4.71 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 28.40/4.71 % Parsed axioms : 308
% 28.40/4.71 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Initial clauses : 659
% 28.40/4.71 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 30
% 28.40/4.71 % Initial clauses in saturation : 629
% 28.40/4.71 % Processed clauses : 11695
% 28.40/4.71 % ...of these trivial : 103
% 28.40/4.71 % ...subsumed : 8529
% 28.40/4.71 % ...remaining for further processing : 3063
% 28.40/4.71 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 675
% 28.40/4.71 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Backward-subsumed : 44
% 28.40/4.71 % Backward-rewritten : 45
% 28.40/4.71 % Generated clauses : 114498
% 28.40/4.71 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 102188
% 28.40/4.71 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 212
% 28.40/4.71 % Paramodulations : 113791
% 28.40/4.71 % Factorizations : 42
% 28.40/4.71 % NegExts : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Equation resolutions : 681
% 28.40/4.71 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Total rewrite steps : 30615
% 28.40/4.71 % ...of those cached : 29235
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional check models : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 28.40/4.71 % Current number of processed clauses : 2316
% 28.40/4.71 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 208
% 28.40/4.71 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 28.40/4.71 % Negative unit clauses : 156
% 28.40/4.71 % Non-unit-clauses : 1949
% 28.40/4.71 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 91462
% 28.40/4.71 % ...number of literals in the above : 375303
% 28.40/4.71 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Current number of archived clauses : 659
% 28.40/4.71 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1350486
% 28.40/4.71 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 886296
% 28.40/4.71 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4877
% 28.40/4.71 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48580
% 28.40/4.71 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % BW rewrite match attempts : 160
% 28.40/4.71 % BW rewrite match successes : 73
% 28.40/4.71 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Condensation successes : 0
% 28.40/4.71 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1479699
% 28.40/4.71 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11306
% 28.40/4.71
% 28.40/4.71 % -------------------------------------------------
% 28.40/4.71 % User time : 3.909 s
% 28.40/4.71 % System time : 0.134 s
% 28.40/4.71 % Total time : 4.043 s
% 28.40/4.71 % Maximum resident set size: 5724 pages
% 28.40/4.71
% 28.40/4.71 % -------------------------------------------------
% 28.40/4.71 % User time : 19.176 s
% 28.40/4.71 % System time : 0.653 s
% 28.40/4.71 % Total time : 19.829 s
% 28.40/4.71 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 28.40/4.71 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------