↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : COL079-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n001.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 12:10:02 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 6.68s 1.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 6.68s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   18 (  13 unt;   0 nHn;   9 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   23 (  22 equ;   8 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   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;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   33 (   2 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(abstraction,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3) = apply(apply(X1,k(X3)),apply(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',abstraction) ).

cnf(k_definition,axiom,
    apply(k(X1),X2) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_definition) ).

cnf(extensionality2,axiom,
    ( apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2))
    | X1 = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',extensionality2) ).

cnf(prove_TRC2a,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_TRC2a) ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3) = apply(apply(X1,k(X3)),apply(X2,X3)),
    abstraction ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    apply(k(X1),X2) = X1,
    k_definition ).

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

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2))
    | X1 = X2 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[extensionality2]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    apply(apply(X1,k(apply(X2,X3))),X3) = apply(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1)),X2),X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2))
    | X1 = X2 ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3) = apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_8]),c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),n(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3)) != apply(X3,n(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3))
    | apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2) = X3 ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2) = apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_TRC2a]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( apply(apply(abstraction,X1),n(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2)) != apply(X2,n(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2))
    | apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))) = X2 ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    c_0_13 ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))) = apply(abstraction,X1),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : COL079-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:14:46 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42  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
% 6.68/1.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 6.68/1.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 6.68/1.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3330916 completed with status 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 6.68/1.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 6.68/1.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 6.68/1.41  % No SInE strategy applied
% 6.68/1.41  % Search class: FHUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 6.68/1.41  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting U----_211g_00_C10_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % U----_211g_00_C10_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3330924 completed with status 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Result found by U----_211g_00_C10_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 6.68/1.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 6.68/1.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 6.68/1.41  % No SInE strategy applied
% 6.68/1.41  % Search class: FHUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 6.68/1.41  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Starting U----_211g_00_C10_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 6.68/1.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 6.68/1.41  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 6.68/1.41  
% 6.68/1.41  % Proof found!
% 6.68/1.41  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 6.68/1.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 6.68/1.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 4
% 6.68/1.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Initial clauses                      : 4
% 6.68/1.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 4
% 6.68/1.41  % Processed clauses                    : 1825
% 6.68/1.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 229
% 6.68/1.41  % ...subsumed                          : 1019
% 6.68/1.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 577
% 6.68/1.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2098
% 6.68/1.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 8
% 6.68/1.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 146
% 6.68/1.41  % Generated clauses                    : 35272
% 6.68/1.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 28440
% 6.68/1.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Paramodulations                      : 33165
% 6.68/1.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 2107
% 6.68/1.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 50654
% 6.68/1.41  % ...of those cached                   : 42480
% 6.68/1.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 6.68/1.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 324
% 6.68/1.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 230
% 6.68/1.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 26
% 6.68/1.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 6.68/1.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 68
% 6.68/1.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 25965
% 6.68/1.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 32339
% 6.68/1.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 158
% 6.68/1.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3600
% 6.68/1.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3508
% 6.68/1.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 819
% 6.68/1.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 605
% 6.68/1.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 14830
% 6.68/1.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 173
% 6.68/1.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 6.68/1.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1389604
% 6.68/1.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 5
% 6.68/1.41  
% 6.68/1.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 6.68/1.41  % User time                : 0.909 s
% 6.68/1.41  % System time              : 0.040 s
% 6.68/1.41  % Total time               : 0.949 s
% 6.68/1.41  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 6.68/1.41  
% 6.68/1.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 6.68/1.41  % User time                : 4.430 s
% 6.68/1.41  % System time              : 0.178 s
% 6.68/1.41  % Total time               : 4.608 s
% 6.68/1.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 6.68/1.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------