↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CAT018-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n010.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 12:08:03 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 0.62s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    9
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   34 (  19 unt;   0 nHn;  30 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   52 (  17 equ;  21 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   34 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(domain_codomain_composition1,axiom,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',composition_implies_domain) ).

cnf(assume_bc_exists,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(b,c)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assume_bc_exists) ).

cnf(domain_has_elements,axiom,
    ( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',domain_has_elements) ).

cnf(compose_domain,axiom,
    compose(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',compose_domain) ).

cnf(associativity_of_compose,axiom,
    compose(X1,compose(X2,X3)) = compose(compose(X1,X2),X3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',associativity_of_compose) ).

cnf(domain_codomain_composition2,axiom,
    ( domain(X1) != codomain(X2)
    | ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(compose(X1,X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',domain_codomain_composition2) ).

cnf(assume_ab_exists,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(a,b)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assume_ab_exists) ).

cnf(prove_a_bc_exists,negated_conjecture,
    ~ there_exists(compose(a,compose(b,c))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_bc_exists) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_codomain_composition1]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | there_exists(domain(X1)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[composition_implies_domain]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | domain(X1) = codomain(X2) ),
    c_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(b,c)),
    assume_bc_exists ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_has_elements]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,X2))
    | there_exists(domain(X1)) ),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
    compose(X1,domain(X1)) = X1,
    compose_domain ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    domain(b) = codomain(c),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(X1) ),
    c_0_13 ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    there_exists(domain(b)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    compose(X1,compose(X2,X3)) = compose(compose(X1,X2),X3),
    associativity_of_compose ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    compose(b,codomain(c)) = b,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
    there_exists(b),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X2,compose(X3,X1)))
    | codomain(X1) = domain(compose(X2,X3)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
    codomain(codomain(c)) = codomain(c),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_20]),c_0_16]),c_0_21])]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    ( domain(X1) != codomain(X2)
    | ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(compose(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[domain_codomain_composition2]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
    ( ~ there_exists(compose(X1,b))
    | domain(compose(X1,b)) = codomain(c) ),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_20]),c_0_23]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,hypothesis,
    there_exists(compose(a,b)),
    assume_ab_exists ).

cnf(c_0_27,plain,
    ( domain(X1) != codomain(X2)
    | ~ there_exists(domain(X1))
    | there_exists(compose(X1,X2)) ),
    c_0_24 ).

cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
    domain(compose(a,b)) = codomain(c),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).

cnf(c_0_29,hypothesis,
    there_exists(codomain(c)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
    ~ there_exists(compose(a,compose(b,c))),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_bc_exists]) ).

cnf(c_0_31,hypothesis,
    ( codomain(X1) != codomain(c)
    | there_exists(compose(a,compose(b,X1))) ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]),c_0_19]),c_0_29])]) ).

cnf(c_0_32,negated_conjecture,
    ~ there_exists(compose(a,compose(b,c))),
    c_0_30 ).

cnf(c_0_33,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_31]),c_0_32]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : CAT018-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.47  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.47  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.47  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.47  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.47  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.47  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.47  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.47  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:56:56 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.47  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.16/0.47  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.55  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.55  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
% 0.22/0.62  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1035870 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.22/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.62  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.62  % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.62  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_B00_00_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S064A with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % G-E--_208_B00_00_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S064A with pid 1035876 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Result found by G-E--_208_B00_00_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S064A
% 0.22/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.62  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.62  % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.62  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_B00_00_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S064A with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.62  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.62  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/0.62  
% 0.22/0.62  % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.62  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/0.62  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.62  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.22/0.62  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Initial clauses                      : 14
% 0.22/0.62  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 14
% 0.22/0.62  % Processed clauses                    : 114
% 0.22/0.62  % ...of these trivial                  : 9
% 0.22/0.62  % ...subsumed                          : 13
% 0.22/0.62  % ...remaining for further processing  : 92
% 0.22/0.62  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 1
% 0.22/0.62  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Backward-rewritten                   : 9
% 0.22/0.62  % Generated clauses                    : 358
% 0.22/0.62  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 261
% 0.22/0.62  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Paramodulations                      : 356
% 0.22/0.62  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Equation resolutions                 : 2
% 0.22/0.62  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Total rewrite steps                  : 283
% 0.22/0.62  % ...of those cached                   : 216
% 0.22/0.62  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.22/0.62  % Current number of processed clauses  : 68
% 0.22/0.62  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 47
% 0.22/0.62  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.62  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.22/0.62  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 20
% 0.22/0.62  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 169
% 0.22/0.62  % ...number of literals in the above   : 222
% 0.22/0.62  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Current number of archived clauses   : 23
% 0.22/0.62  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 48
% 0.22/0.62  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48
% 0.22/0.62  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 13
% 0.22/0.62  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 27
% 0.22/0.62  % BW rewrite match successes           : 9
% 0.22/0.62  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/0.62  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3941
% 0.22/0.62  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 20
% 0.22/0.62  
% 0.22/0.62  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.62  % User time                : 0.011 s
% 0.22/0.62  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.22/0.62  % Total time               : 0.019 s
% 0.22/0.62  % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.22/0.62  
% 0.22/0.62  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.62  % User time                : 0.076 s
% 0.22/0.62  % System time              : 0.026 s
% 0.22/0.62  % Total time               : 0.101 s
% 0.22/0.62  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.62  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------