↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR065+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n019.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 12:16:26 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 2.69s 1.85s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.69s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    8
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   27 (  13 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   47 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   35 (  15   ~;  12   |;   3   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   5  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   7 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    9 (   0 sgn   6   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query165,conjecture,
    ( mtvisible(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt)
   => tptpofobject(c_tptpridgeline_topographical,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query165) ).

fof(ax2_7997,axiom,
    ! [X21,X22] :
      ( ( genlmt(X21,X22)
        & mtvisible(X21) )
     => mtvisible(X22) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_7997) ).

fof(ax2_142,axiom,
    genlmt(c_tptp_member3633_mt,c_tptp_spindleheadmt),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_142) ).

fof(ax2_279,axiom,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt,c_tptp_member235_mt),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_279) ).

fof(ax2_2882,axiom,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt,c_tptp_member3633_mt),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_2882) ).

fof(ax2_4288,axiom,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindleheadmt,c_cyclistsmt),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_4288) ).

fof(ax2_3571,axiom,
    ! [X2] :
      ( ( ridgeline_topographical(X2)
        & mtvisible(c_tptp_member235_mt) )
     => tptpofobject(X2,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_3571) ).

fof(ax2_737,axiom,
    ( mtvisible(c_cyclistsmt)
   => ridgeline_topographical(c_tptpridgeline_topographical) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_737) ).

fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( mtvisible(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt)
     => tptpofobject(c_tptpridgeline_topographical,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468)) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query165]) ).

fof(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X5978,X5979] :
      ( mtvisible(X5979)
      | ~ genlmt(X5978,X5979)
      | ~ mtvisible(X5978) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax2_7997])])]) ).

fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ tptpofobject(c_tptpridgeline_topographical,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468))
    & mtvisible(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ genlmt(X1,X2)
    | ~ mtvisible(X1)
    | mtvisible(X2) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    genlmt(c_tptp_member3633_mt,c_tptp_spindleheadmt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax2_142]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt,c_tptp_member235_mt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax2_279]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    mtvisible(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindlecollectormt,c_tptp_member3633_mt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax2_2882]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    genlmt(c_tptp_spindleheadmt,c_cyclistsmt),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax2_4288]) ).

fof(c_0_17,plain,
    ! [X1073] :
      ( tptpofobject(X1073,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468))
      | ~ ridgeline_topographical(X1073)
      | ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_member235_mt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax2_3571])])]) ).

fof(c_0_18,plain,
    ( ridgeline_topographical(c_tptpridgeline_topographical)
    | ~ mtvisible(c_cyclistsmt) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax2_737])]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    ( ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_member3633_mt)
    | mtvisible(c_tptp_spindleheadmt) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,plain,
    mtvisible(c_tptp_member235_mt),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,plain,
    mtvisible(c_tptp_member3633_mt),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_15]),c_0_14])]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    ( ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_spindleheadmt)
    | mtvisible(c_cyclistsmt) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,plain,
    ( ~ ridgeline_topographical(X1)
    | ~ mtvisible(c_tptp_member235_mt)
    | tptpofobject(X1,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    ( ~ mtvisible(c_cyclistsmt)
    | ridgeline_topographical(c_tptpridgeline_topographical) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
    ~ tptpofobject(c_tptpridgeline_topographical,f_tptpquantityfn_13(n_468)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cdclpropres,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20,c_0_21,c_0_22,c_0_23,c_0_24,c_0_25]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : CSR065+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.52  % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.52  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.52  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.52  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.52  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.52  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.52  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.52  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:42:52 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.53  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.53  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.57  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.57  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
% 2.69/1.85  % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.69/1.85  % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 2.69/1.85  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % new_bool_1 with pid 2830071 completed with status 9
% 2.69/1.85  % new_bool_3 with pid 2830070 completed with status 9
% 2.69/1.85  % G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with pid 2830069 completed with status 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Result found by G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y
% 2.69/1.85  % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 2.69/1.85  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.69/1.85  % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.69/1.85  % Search class: FHHNM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 2.69/1.85  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 901s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting new_bool_3 with 151s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting new_bool_1 with 146s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with pid 2830101 completed with status 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Result found by G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y
% 2.69/1.85  % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 2.69/1.85  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.69/1.85  % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.69/1.85  % Search class: FHHNM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 2.69/1.85  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 901s (1) cores
% 2.69/1.85  % Preprocessing time       : 0.121 s
% 2.69/1.85  % SatCheck found unsatisfiable ground set
% 2.69/1.85  
% 2.69/1.85  % Proof found!
% 2.69/1.85  % SZS status Theorem
% 2.69/1.85  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.69/1.85  % Parsed axioms                        : 8006
% 2.69/1.85  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Initial clauses                      : 8007
% 2.69/1.85  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 8007
% 2.69/1.85  % Processed clauses                    : 5621
% 2.69/1.85  % ...of these trivial                  : 318
% 2.69/1.85  % ...subsumed                          : 303
% 2.69/1.85  % ...remaining for further processing  : 5000
% 2.69/1.85  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Backward-rewritten                   : 23
% 2.69/1.85  % Generated clauses                    : 14042
% 2.69/1.85  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 13491
% 2.69/1.85  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Paramodulations                      : 14042
% 2.69/1.85  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % NegExts                              : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Total rewrite steps                  : 749
% 2.69/1.85  % ...of those cached                   : 317
% 2.69/1.85  % Propositional unsat checks           : 1
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 1
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional clauses             : 20854
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 6023
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 7
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.023
% 2.69/1.85  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.007
% 2.69/1.85  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 2.69/1.85  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.023
% 2.69/1.85  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.007
% 2.69/1.85  % Current number of processed clauses  : 4977
% 2.69/1.85  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2368
% 2.69/1.85  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 2.69/1.85  %    Negative unit clauses             : 33
% 2.69/1.85  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2576
% 2.69/1.85  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15877
% 2.69/1.85  % ...number of literals in the above   : 27614
% 2.69/1.85  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Current number of archived clauses   : 23
% 2.69/1.85  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1155256
% 2.69/1.85  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1032387
% 2.69/1.85  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 303
% 2.69/1.85  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 14435
% 2.69/1.85  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 138
% 2.69/1.85  % BW rewrite match successes           : 23
% 2.69/1.85  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 2.69/1.85  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 475099
% 2.69/1.85  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 41047
% 2.69/1.85  
% 2.69/1.85  % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.69/1.85  % User time                : 1.089 s
% 2.69/1.85  % System time              : 0.084 s
% 2.69/1.85  % Total time               : 1.173 s
% 2.69/1.85  % Maximum resident set size: 24180 pages
% 2.69/1.85  
% 2.69/1.85  % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.69/1.85  % User time                : 4.549 s
% 2.69/1.85  % System time              : 0.683 s
% 2.69/1.85  % Total time               : 5.233 s
% 2.69/1.85  % Maximum resident set size: 11264 pages
% 2.69/1.85  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------