%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU268+1 : 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 : n012.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 02:24:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.36s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 28 ( 14 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 103 ( 18 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 33 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 127 ( 52 ~; 55 |; 11 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 46 ( 3 sgn 24 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(d1_wellord2,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> ( X2 = inclusion_relation(X1)
<=> ( ! [X3,X4] :
( ( in(X4,X1)
& in(X3,X1) )
=> ( in(ordered_pair(X3,X4),X2)
<=> subset(X3,X4) ) )
& relation_field(X2) = X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_wellord2) ).
fof(dt_k1_wellord2,axiom,
! [X1] : relation(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k1_wellord2) ).
fof(d1_relat_2,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( is_reflexive_in(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
=> in(ordered_pair(X3,X3),X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d1_relat_2) ).
fof(reflexivity_r1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reflexivity_r1_tarski) ).
fof(d9_relat_2,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ( reflexive(X1)
<=> is_reflexive_in(X1,relation_field(X1)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d9_relat_2) ).
fof(t2_wellord2,conjecture,
! [X1] : reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t2_wellord2) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X7,X8,X9,X10] :
( ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 = inclusion_relation(X7)
| relation_field(X8) != X7
| subset(esk2_2(X7,X8),esk3_2(X7,X8))
| in(ordered_pair(esk2_2(X7,X8),esk3_2(X7,X8)),X8) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 = inclusion_relation(X7)
| relation_field(X8) != X7
| ~ subset(esk2_2(X7,X8),esk3_2(X7,X8))
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk2_2(X7,X8),esk3_2(X7,X8)),X8) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 = inclusion_relation(X7)
| relation_field(X8) != X7
| in(esk3_2(X7,X8),X7) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 = inclusion_relation(X7)
| relation_field(X8) != X7
| in(esk2_2(X7,X8),X7) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 != inclusion_relation(X7)
| ~ in(X10,X7)
| ~ in(X9,X7)
| in(ordered_pair(X9,X10),X8)
| ~ subset(X9,X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 != inclusion_relation(X7)
| ~ in(X10,X7)
| ~ in(X9,X7)
| subset(X9,X10)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(X9,X10),X8) )
& ( ~ relation(X8)
| X8 != inclusion_relation(X7)
| relation_field(X8) = 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(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d1_wellord2])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X13] : relation(inclusion_relation(X13)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[dt_k1_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X14,X15,X16,X17] :
( ( ~ relation(X14)
| is_reflexive_in(X14,X17)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk4_2(X14,X17),esk4_2(X14,X17)),X14) )
& ( ~ relation(X14)
| is_reflexive_in(X14,X17)
| in(esk4_2(X14,X17),X17) )
& ( ~ relation(X14)
| in(ordered_pair(X16,X16),X14)
| ~ in(X16,X15)
| ~ is_reflexive_in(X14,X15) ) ),
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)],[d1_relat_2])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ relation(X3)
| X3 != inclusion_relation(X4)
| ~ in(X2,X4)
| ~ in(X1,X4)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
relation(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X21] : subset(X21,X21),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X6] :
( ( ~ relation(X6)
| reflexive(X6)
| ~ is_reflexive_in(X6,relation_field(X6)) )
& ( ~ relation(X6)
| is_reflexive_in(X6,relation_field(X6))
| ~ reflexive(X6) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d9_relat_2])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| X1 != inclusion_relation(X2)
| relation_field(X1) = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ in(ordered_pair(esk4_2(X1,X2),esk4_2(X1,X2)),X1)
| is_reflexive_in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ in(X1,X3)
| ~ in(X2,X3)
| ~ subset(X1,X2)
| in(ordered_pair(X1,X2),inclusion_relation(X3)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
subset(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] : reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t2_wellord2]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ is_reflexive_in(X1,relation_field(X1))
| reflexive(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
relation_field(inclusion_relation(X1)) = X1,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ in(esk4_2(inclusion_relation(X1),X2),X1)
| is_reflexive_in(inclusion_relation(X1),X2) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_10]),c_0_16])]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| is_reflexive_in(X1,X2)
| in(esk4_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
~ reflexive(inclusion_relation(esk1_0)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_17])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( ~ is_reflexive_in(inclusion_relation(X1),X1)
| reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
is_reflexive_in(inclusion_relation(X1),X1),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
~ reflexive(inclusion_relation(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24])]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SEU268+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.03 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.32 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.32 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.32 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.32 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.06/0.32 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:05:21 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.06/0.32 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.34 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.34 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
% 0.09/0.36 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.36 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.36 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % new_bool_3 with pid 1709264 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.09/0.36 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.36 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.36 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.36 % Search class: FGHSS-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.36 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1709267 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.36 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.36 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.36 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.36 % Search class: FGHSS-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.36 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.36 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.36 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.36
% 0.09/0.36 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.36 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.36 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.36 % Parsed axioms : 51
% 0.09/0.36 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 30
% 0.09/0.36 % Initial clauses : 34
% 0.09/0.36 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Initial clauses in saturation : 34
% 0.09/0.36 % Processed clauses : 270
% 0.09/0.36 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % ...subsumed : 122
% 0.09/0.36 % ...remaining for further processing : 148
% 0.09/0.36 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% 0.09/0.36 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Backward-subsumed : 5
% 0.09/0.36 % Backward-rewritten : 11
% 0.09/0.36 % Generated clauses : 495
% 0.09/0.36 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 450
% 0.09/0.36 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Paramodulations : 488
% 0.09/0.36 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Equation resolutions : 7
% 0.09/0.36 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Total rewrite steps : 107
% 0.09/0.36 % ...of those cached : 73
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.36 % Current number of processed clauses : 125
% 0.09/0.36 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.09/0.36 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.09/0.36 % Non-unit-clauses : 109
% 0.09/0.36 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 212
% 0.09/0.36 % ...number of literals in the above : 743
% 0.09/0.36 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Current number of archived clauses : 16
% 0.09/0.36 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2344
% 0.09/0.36 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1790
% 0.09/0.36 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 124
% 0.09/0.36 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 77
% 0.09/0.36 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.09/0.36 % BW rewrite match successes : 9
% 0.09/0.36 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.36 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8276
% 0.09/0.36 % Search garbage collected termcells : 582
% 0.09/0.36
% 0.09/0.36 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.36 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.36 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.36 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.09/0.36 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.09/0.36
% 0.09/0.36 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.36 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.09/0.36 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.36 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.09/0.36 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.36 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------