↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR043+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 12:18:11 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.73s 46.93s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.73s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    7 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   10 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    6 (   3   ~;   0   |;   1   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query243,conjecture,
    ( mtvisible(c_tptp_member2862_mt)
   => genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query243) ).

fof(ax4_15598,axiom,
    genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_15598) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( mtvisible(c_tptp_member2862_mt)
     => genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query243]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970)
    & mtvisible(c_tptp_member2862_mt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    genls(c_tptpcol_16_30972,c_tptpcol_15_30970),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax4_15598]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : CSR043+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34   % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34   % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34   % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34   % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34   % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.59/25.79  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.59/25.79  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.59/25.79  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:33:08 UTC 2026
% 0.59/25.80  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.59/25.80  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.67/25.87  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.67/25.87  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
% 0.73/46.93  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.73/46.93  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.73/46.93  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 285 seconds (2280 total)
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting new_ho_10 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting sh3 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % new_ho_10 with pid 1106397 completed with status 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.73/46.93  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.73/46.93  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 285 seconds (2280 total)
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting new_ho_10 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.73/46.93  % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.73/46.93  % Search class: FHHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.73/46.93  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.73/46.93  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 2 cores with 566 seconds (566 total)
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 51s (1) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting new_ho_10 with 57s (1) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1106520 completed with status 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.73/46.93  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.73/46.93  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 285 seconds (2280 total)
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting new_ho_10 with 570s (2) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.73/46.93  % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.73/46.93  % Search class: FHHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.73/46.93  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.73/46.93  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 2 cores with 566 seconds (566 total)
% 0.73/46.93  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 51s (1) cores
% 0.73/46.93  % Preprocessing time       : 0.213 s
% 0.73/46.93  
% 0.73/46.93  % Proof found!
% 0.73/46.93  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.73/46.93  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.73/46.93  % Parsed axioms                        : 540250
% 0.73/46.93  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 539885
% 0.73/46.93  % Initial clauses                      : 366
% 0.73/46.93  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 0.73/46.93  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 364
% 0.73/46.93  % Processed clauses                    : 82
% 0.73/46.93  % ...of these trivial                  : 11
% 0.73/46.93  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % ...remaining for further processing  : 70
% 0.73/46.93  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 1
% 0.73/46.93  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Backward-rewritten                   : 6
% 0.73/46.93  % Generated clauses                    : 1
% 0.73/46.93  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.73/46.93  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.73/46.93  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Total rewrite steps                  : 18
% 0.73/46.93  % ...of those cached                   : 3
% 0.73/46.93  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.73/46.93  % Current number of processed clauses  : 63
% 0.73/46.93  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 62
% 0.73/46.93  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.73/46.93  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 1
% 0.73/46.93  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 283
% 0.73/46.93  % ...number of literals in the above   : 483
% 0.73/46.93  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Current number of archived clauses   : 6
% 0.73/46.93  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 6
% 0.73/46.93  % BW rewrite match successes           : 6
% 0.73/46.93  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.73/46.93  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3690290
% 0.73/46.93  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2173875
% 0.73/46.93  
% 0.73/46.93  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.73/46.93  % User time                : 3.293 s
% 0.73/46.93  % System time              : 1.415 s
% 0.73/46.93  % Total time               : 4.709 s
% 0.73/46.93  % Maximum resident set size: 1242144 pages
% 0.73/46.93  
% 0.73/46.93  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.73/46.93  % User time                : 18.672 s
% 0.73/46.93  % System time              : 2.492 s
% 0.73/46.93  % Total time               : 21.164 s
% 0.73/46.93  % Maximum resident set size: 456448 pages
% 0.73/46.93  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------