%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU275+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 : n007.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 02:24:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 1.90s 1.10s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.90s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 30 ( 16 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 75 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 22 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 79 ( 34 ~; 29 |; 10 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 14 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 9 ( 8 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 24 ( 4 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t7_wellord2,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ordinal(X1)
=> well_ordering(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t7_wellord2) ).
fof(d4_wellord1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> ( well_ordering(X1)
<=> ( well_founded_relation(X1)
& connected(X1)
& antisymmetric(X1)
& transitive(X1)
& reflexive(X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d4_wellord1) ).
fof(t2_wellord2,lemma,
! [X1] : reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t2_wellord2) ).
fof(t3_wellord2,lemma,
! [X1] : transitive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t3_wellord2) ).
fof(t5_wellord2,lemma,
! [X1] : antisymmetric(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t5_wellord2) ).
fof(dt_k1_wellord2,axiom,
! [X1] : relation(inclusion_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dt_k1_wellord2) ).
fof(t6_wellord2,lemma,
! [X1] :
( ordinal(X1)
=> well_founded_relation(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t6_wellord2) ).
fof(t4_wellord2,lemma,
! [X1] :
( ordinal(X1)
=> connected(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t4_wellord2) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ordinal(X1)
=> well_ordering(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t7_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X10] :
( ( ~ relation(X10)
| well_ordering(X10)
| ~ well_founded_relation(X10)
| ~ connected(X10)
| ~ antisymmetric(X10)
| ~ transitive(X10)
| ~ reflexive(X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X10)
| ~ well_ordering(X10)
| well_founded_relation(X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X10)
| ~ well_ordering(X10)
| connected(X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X10)
| ~ well_ordering(X10)
| antisymmetric(X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X10)
| ~ well_ordering(X10)
| transitive(X10) )
& ( ~ relation(X10)
| ~ well_ordering(X10)
| reflexive(X10) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d4_wellord1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,lemma,
! [X25] : reflexive(inclusion_relation(X25)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t2_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_11,lemma,
! [X26] : transitive(inclusion_relation(X26)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t3_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_12,lemma,
! [X28] : antisymmetric(inclusion_relation(X28)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t5_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X24] : relation(inclusion_relation(X24)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[dt_k1_wellord2]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ well_ordering(inclusion_relation(esk1_0))
& ordinal(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ well_founded_relation(X1)
| ~ connected(X1)
| ~ antisymmetric(X1)
| ~ transitive(X1)
| ~ reflexive(X1)
| well_ordering(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
reflexive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,lemma,
transitive(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,lemma,
antisymmetric(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
relation(inclusion_relation(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ well_ordering(inclusion_relation(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,lemma,
( ~ connected(inclusion_relation(X1))
| ~ well_founded_relation(inclusion_relation(X1))
| well_ordering(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]),c_0_18]),c_0_19])]) ).
fof(c_0_22,lemma,
! [X29] :
( well_founded_relation(inclusion_relation(X29))
| ~ ordinal(X29) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t6_wellord2])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
( ~ connected(inclusion_relation(esk1_0))
| ~ well_founded_relation(inclusion_relation(esk1_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,lemma,
( ~ ordinal(X1)
| well_founded_relation(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
ordinal(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
fof(c_0_26,lemma,
! [X27] :
( connected(inclusion_relation(X27))
| ~ ordinal(X27) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t4_wellord2])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,lemma,
~ connected(inclusion_relation(esk1_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),c_0_25])]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,lemma,
( ~ ordinal(X1)
| connected(inclusion_relation(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_26]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]),c_0_25])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SEU275+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.44 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:04:20 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.52 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
% 1.90/1.10 % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.90/1.10 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.90/1.10 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % new_bool_1 with pid 341394 completed with status 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 1.90/1.10 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.90/1.10 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.90/1.10 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.90/1.10 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 1.90/1.10 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % SubtermCWHack with pid 341396 completed with status 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 1.90/1.10 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.90/1.10 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.90/1.10 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.90/1.10 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 1.90/1.10 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.90/1.10 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 1.90/1.10 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 1.90/1.10
% 1.90/1.10 % Proof found!
% 1.90/1.10 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.90/1.10 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.90/1.10 % Parsed axioms : 353
% 1.90/1.10 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 187
% 1.90/1.10 % Initial clauses : 354
% 1.90/1.10 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 1.90/1.10 % Initial clauses in saturation : 350
% 1.90/1.10 % Processed clauses : 3645
% 1.90/1.10 % ...of these trivial : 21
% 1.90/1.10 % ...subsumed : 2525
% 1.90/1.10 % ...remaining for further processing : 1099
% 1.90/1.10 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 94
% 1.90/1.10 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Backward-subsumed : 12
% 1.90/1.10 % Backward-rewritten : 35
% 1.90/1.10 % Generated clauses : 18779
% 1.90/1.10 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 12602
% 1.90/1.10 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 42
% 1.90/1.10 % Paramodulations : 18677
% 1.90/1.10 % Factorizations : 12
% 1.90/1.10 % NegExts : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Equation resolutions : 97
% 1.90/1.10 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Total rewrite steps : 12896
% 1.90/1.10 % ...of those cached : 12619
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional check models : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 1.90/1.10 % Current number of processed clauses : 1005
% 1.90/1.10 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 86
% 1.90/1.10 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 1.90/1.10 % Negative unit clauses : 13
% 1.90/1.10 % Non-unit-clauses : 904
% 1.90/1.10 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 9218
% 1.90/1.10 % ...number of literals in the above : 33872
% 1.90/1.10 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Current number of archived clauses : 47
% 1.90/1.10 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 267277
% 1.90/1.10 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 157464
% 1.90/1.10 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2381
% 1.90/1.10 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3909
% 1.90/1.10 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % BW rewrite match attempts : 77
% 1.90/1.10 % BW rewrite match successes : 27
% 1.90/1.10 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Condensation successes : 0
% 1.90/1.10 % Termbank termtop insertions : 224871
% 1.90/1.10 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7577
% 1.90/1.10
% 1.90/1.10 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.90/1.10 % User time : 0.503 s
% 1.90/1.10 % System time : 0.031 s
% 1.90/1.10 % Total time : 0.534 s
% 1.90/1.10 % Maximum resident set size: 5052 pages
% 1.90/1.10
% 1.90/1.10 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.90/1.10 % User time : 0.519 s
% 1.90/1.10 % System time : 0.038 s
% 1.90/1.10 % Total time : 0.556 s
% 1.90/1.10 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 1.90/1.10 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------