↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : COL058-1 : 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 : n026.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 12:09:26 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.10s 0.42s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   9 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :    9 (   8 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   10 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_the_bird_exists,negated_conjecture,
    response(X1,X1) != X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_the_bird_exists) ).

cnf(lark_exists,axiom,
    response(response(lark,X1),X2) = response(X1,response(X2,X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lark_exists) ).

cnf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    response(X1,X1) != X1,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_the_bird_exists]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    response(X1,X1) != X1,
    c_0_2 ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    response(response(lark,X1),X2) = response(X1,response(X2,X2)),
    lark_exists ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    response(response(lark,response(X1,X1)),X1) != response(X1,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    response(response(response(lark,lark),X1),X1) != response(X1,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    response(response(response(lark,response(lark,lark)),X1),response(X1,X1)) != response(response(X1,X1),response(X1,X1)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : COL058-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:10:06 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41  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
% 0.10/0.42  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % sh5l with pid 2473045 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Result found by sh5l
% 0.10/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.10/0.42  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.10/0.42  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.42  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2473051 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.10/0.42  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.10/0.42  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.42  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.42  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.42  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.42  
% 0.10/0.42  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.42  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.10/0.42  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.42  % Parsed axioms                        : 2
% 0.10/0.42  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Initial clauses                      : 2
% 0.10/0.42  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 2
% 0.10/0.42  % Processed clauses                    : 18
% 0.10/0.42  % ...of these trivial                  : 3
% 0.10/0.42  % ...subsumed                          : 6
% 0.10/0.42  % ...remaining for further processing  : 9
% 0.10/0.42  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Generated clauses                    : 76
% 0.10/0.42  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 58
% 0.10/0.42  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Paramodulations                      : 75
% 0.10/0.42  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.10/0.42  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.42  % Total rewrite steps                  : 84
% 0.10/0.42  % ...of those cached                   : 52
% 0.10/0.42  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.42  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.42  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of processed clauses  : 9
% 0.10/0.43  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.10/0.43  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.10/0.43  %    Negative unit clauses             : 5
% 0.10/0.43  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 42
% 0.10/0.43  % ...number of literals in the above   : 42
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.10/0.43  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.10/0.43  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.10/0.43  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1489
% 0.10/0.43  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 0.10/0.43  
% 0.10/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.43  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 3624 pages
% 0.10/0.43  
% 0.10/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.43  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.43  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------