%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU303+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 : n011.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 02:24:38 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 39 ( 3 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 38 ( 14 ~; 11 |; 7 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t26_finset_1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( finite(relation_dom(X1))
=> finite(relation_rng(X1)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t26_finset_1) ).
fof(fc13_finset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( finite(X2)
& function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> finite(relation_image(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc13_finset_1) ).
fof(t146_relat_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( relation(X1)
=> relation_image(X1,relation_dom(X1)) = relation_rng(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t146_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ( function(X1)
& relation(X1) )
=> ( finite(relation_dom(X1))
=> finite(relation_rng(X1)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t26_finset_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( finite(relation_image(X3,X4))
| ~ finite(X4)
| ~ function(X3)
| ~ relation(X3) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc13_finset_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X6] :
( relation_image(X6,relation_dom(X6)) = relation_rng(X6)
| ~ relation(X6) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t146_relat_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ finite(relation_rng(esk2_0))
& finite(relation_dom(esk2_0))
& function(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_3])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ finite(X2)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| finite(relation_image(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| relation_image(X1,relation_dom(X1)) = relation_rng(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ finite(relation_rng(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ relation(X1)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ finite(relation_dom(X1))
| finite(relation_rng(X1)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
finite(relation_dom(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
function(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEU303+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.48 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.48 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.48 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.48 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.48 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.48 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:09:40 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.48 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.48 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.55 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
% 0.21/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1141353 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.21/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.59 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_11_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1141355 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.59 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.21/0.59
% 0.21/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.59 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 8
% 0.21/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Initial clauses : 12
% 0.21/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.21/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.21/0.59 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.21/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.21/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.21/0.59 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.21/0.59 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.21/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.21/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.21/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 556
% 0.21/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 115
% 0.21/0.59
% 0.21/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.59 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.59 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.59 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.21/0.59
% 0.21/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.59 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.21/0.59 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.21/0.59 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.21/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.21/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------