↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CAT005-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n004.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 12:07:59 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 0.56s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   23 (  11 unt;   0 nHn;  21 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   35 (  12 equ;  15 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(domain_codomain_composition1,axiom,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',domain_codomain_composition1) ).

cnf(composition_implies_domain,axiom,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | there_exists(domain(X1)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',composition_implies_domain) ).

cnf(codomain_has_elements,axiom,
    ( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',codomain_has_elements) ).

cnf(ad_exists,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(a,d)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ad_exists) ).

cnf(xd_equals_x,hypothesis,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,d))
    | compose(X1,d) = X1 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',xd_equals_x) ).

cnf(prove_domain_of_a_is_d,negated_conjecture,
    domain(a) != d,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_domain_of_a_is_d) ).

cnf(compose_codomain,axiom,
    compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',compose_codomain) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_codomain_composition1]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | there_exists(domain(X1)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[composition_implies_domain]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[codomain_has_elements]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(a,d)),
    ad_exists ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | there_exists(domain(X1)) ),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,d))
    | compose(X1,d) = X1 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[xd_equals_x]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(codomain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    c_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
    codomain(d) = domain(a),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    there_exists(domain(a)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    domain(a) != d,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_domain_of_a_is_d]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,d))
    | compose(X1,d) = X1 ),
    c_0_13 ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    compose(codomain(X1),X1) = X1,
    compose_codomain ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    there_exists(d),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    domain(a) != d,
    c_0_17 ).

cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_15]),c_0_20])]),c_0_21]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : CAT005-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.50  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.50  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.50  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.50  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.50  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.50  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.50  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.50  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:55:37 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.50  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.50  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.54  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
% 0.22/0.56  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % new_bool_3 with pid 3302332 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.22/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.56  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.56  % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.56  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3302337 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.56  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.56  % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.56  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.56  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.56  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.56  
% 0.22/0.56  % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.56  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/0.56  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.56  % Parsed axioms                        : 15
% 0.22/0.56  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 3
% 0.22/0.56  % Initial clauses                      : 12
% 0.22/0.56  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 12
% 0.22/0.56  % Processed clauses                    : 22
% 0.22/0.56  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % ...subsumed                          : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % ...remaining for further processing  : 21
% 0.22/0.56  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % Generated clauses                    : 35
% 0.22/0.56  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 20
% 0.22/0.56  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Paramodulations                      : 35
% 0.22/0.56  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Total rewrite steps                  : 20
% 0.22/0.56  % ...of those cached                   : 15
% 0.22/0.56  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.22/0.56  % Current number of processed clauses  : 20
% 0.22/0.56  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 9
% 0.22/0.56  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.56  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.22/0.56  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 10
% 0.22/0.56  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.22/0.56  % ...number of literals in the above   : 21
% 0.22/0.56  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.22/0.56  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.22/0.56  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.22/0.56  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/0.56  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 561
% 0.22/0.56  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 29
% 0.22/0.56  
% 0.22/0.56  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.56  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.56  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.56  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.56  % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.22/0.56  
% 0.22/0.56  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.56  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.56  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.56  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.22/0.56  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.22/0.56  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------