↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR051+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n012.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 12:16:15 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 25.86s 23.28s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 25.86s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   3 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   11 (   5   ~;   2   |;   1   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    4 (   1 sgn   1   !;   2   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query251,conjecture,
    ? [X23] :
      ( mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt)
     => marriagelicensedocument(X23) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query251) ).

fof(ax4_56266,axiom,
    ( mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt)
   => marriagelicensedocument(c_tptpmarriagelicensedocument) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_56266) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X23] :
        ( mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt)
       => marriagelicensedocument(X23) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query251]) ).

fof(c_0_3,plain,
    ( marriagelicensedocument(c_tptpmarriagelicensedocument)
    | ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_56266])]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X30] :
      ( ~ marriagelicensedocument(X30)
      & mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt)
    | marriagelicensedocument(c_tptpmarriagelicensedocument) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    mtvisible(c_tptp_member3356_mt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ marriagelicensedocument(X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01  % Problem  : CSR051+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.02  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.04/5.94  % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.04/5.94  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.04/5.94  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.04/5.94  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.04/5.94  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.04/5.94  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.04/5.94  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.04/5.94  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:36:37 UTC 2026
% 0.04/5.95  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.04/5.95  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.04/5.97  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.04/5.97  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
% 25.86/23.28  % Version: 3.5.1
% 25.86/23.28  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 25.86/23.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % new_ho_10 with pid 2576841 completed with status 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 25.86/23.28  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 25.86/23.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 25.86/23.28  % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 25.86/23.28  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM00-SFFFFFNN
% 25.86/23.28  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 573 seconds (573 total)
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting new_ho_10 with 58s (1) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2576845 completed with status 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 25.86/23.28  % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 25.86/23.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 25.86/23.28  % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 25.86/23.28  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM00-SFFFFFNN
% 25.86/23.28  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 573 seconds (573 total)
% 25.86/23.28  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 25.86/23.28  % Preprocessing time       : 0.241 s
% 25.86/23.28  
% 25.86/23.28  % Proof found!
% 25.86/23.28  % SZS status Theorem
% 25.86/23.28  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 25.86/23.28  % Parsed axioms                        : 540250
% 25.86/23.28  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 540208
% 25.86/23.28  % Initial clauses                      : 43
% 25.86/23.28  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 43
% 25.86/23.28  % Processed clauses                    : 11
% 25.86/23.28  % ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 25.86/23.28  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % ...remaining for further processing  : 9
% 25.86/23.28  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % NegExts                              : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 25.86/23.28  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 25.86/23.28  % Current number of processed clauses  : 9
% 25.86/23.28  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 8
% 25.86/23.28  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 25.86/23.28  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 25.86/23.28  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 25.86/23.28  % ...number of literals in the above   : 40
% 25.86/23.28  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 25.86/23.28  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3677560
% 25.86/23.28  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2173859
% 25.86/23.28  
% 25.86/23.28  % -------------------------------------------------
% 25.86/23.28  % User time                : 2.723 s
% 25.86/23.28  % System time              : 1.108 s
% 25.86/23.28  % Total time               : 3.831 s
% 25.86/23.28  % Maximum resident set size: 1241880 pages
% 25.86/23.28  
% 25.86/23.28  % -------------------------------------------------
% 25.86/23.28  % User time                : 15.397 s
% 25.86/23.28  % System time              : 1.890 s
% 25.86/23.28  % Total time               : 17.288 s
% 25.86/23.28  % Maximum resident set size: 456704 pages
% 25.86/23.28  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------