↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : COL042-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.1.0.
% 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 12:09:23 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 13.89s 2.26s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 13.89s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   16 (  16 unt;   0 nHn;   6 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   16 (  15 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   23 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(w1_definition,axiom,
    apply(apply(w1,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X2,X1),X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',w1_definition) ).

cnf(b_definition,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(b,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b_definition) ).

cnf(strong_fixed_point,axiom,
    strong_fixed_point = apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(w1,w1)),apply(b,w1))),apply(apply(b,b),b)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',strong_fixed_point) ).

cnf(prove_strong_fixed_point,negated_conjecture,
    apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_strong_fixed_point) ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    apply(apply(w1,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X2,X1),X1),
    w1_definition ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(b,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
    b_definition ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,X2),X3)) = apply(apply(X2,apply(X3,X1)),X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,apply(b,X2)),X3)) = apply(X2,apply(apply(X3,X1),X1)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,apply(b,X2)),X3)) = apply(X2,apply(apply(w1,X1),X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    strong_fixed_point = apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(w1,w1)),apply(b,w1))),apply(apply(b,b),b)),
    strong_fixed_point ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_strong_fixed_point]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    apply(X1,apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,X1)),X2)),X2)) = apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,X1)),X2)),w1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,X1)),w1)),w1) = apply(strong_fixed_point,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_9]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]),c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(strong_fixed_point,fixed_pt)),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    apply(X1,apply(strong_fixed_point,X1)) = apply(strong_fixed_point,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : COL042-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:05:56 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.44  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.44  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
% 13.89/2.26  % Version: 3.5.1
% 13.89/2.26  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 13.89/2.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 2105943 completed with status 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 13.89/2.26  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 13.89/2.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 13.89/2.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 13.89/2.26  % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 13.89/2.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % new_bool_3 with pid 2105953 completed with status 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 13.89/2.26  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 13.89/2.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 13.89/2.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 13.89/2.26  % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 13.89/2.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 13.89/2.26  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 13.89/2.26  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 13.89/2.26  
% 13.89/2.26  % Proof found!
% 13.89/2.26  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 13.89/2.26  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 13.89/2.26  % Parsed axioms                        : 4
% 13.89/2.26  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Initial clauses                      : 4
% 13.89/2.26  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 4
% 13.89/2.26  % Processed clauses                    : 802
% 13.89/2.26  % ...of these trivial                  : 282
% 13.89/2.26  % ...subsumed                          : 258
% 13.89/2.26  % ...remaining for further processing  : 262
% 13.89/2.26  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 13.89/2.26  % Backward-rewritten                   : 35
% 13.89/2.26  % Generated clauses                    : 44736
% 13.89/2.26  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 43327
% 13.89/2.26  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Paramodulations                      : 44736
% 13.89/2.26  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % NegExts                              : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Total rewrite steps                  : 28740
% 13.89/2.26  % ...of those cached                   : 21979
% 13.89/2.26  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 13.89/2.26  % Current number of processed clauses  : 221
% 13.89/2.26  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 154
% 13.89/2.26  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 67
% 13.89/2.26  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 13.89/2.26  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 42436
% 13.89/2.26  % ...number of literals in the above   : 42436
% 13.89/2.26  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Current number of archived clauses   : 41
% 13.89/2.26  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2899
% 13.89/2.26  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 8803
% 13.89/2.26  % BW rewrite match successes           : 277
% 13.89/2.26  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 13.89/2.26  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1485225
% 13.89/2.26  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 13.89/2.26  
% 13.89/2.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 13.89/2.26  % User time                : 1.693 s
% 13.89/2.26  % System time              : 0.066 s
% 13.89/2.26  % Total time               : 1.759 s
% 13.89/2.26  % Maximum resident set size: 3324 pages
% 13.89/2.26  
% 13.89/2.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 13.89/2.26  % User time                : 8.377 s
% 13.89/2.26  % System time              : 0.297 s
% 13.89/2.26  % Total time               : 8.674 s
% 13.89/2.26  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 13.89/2.26  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------