↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR099+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n015.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 12:16:50 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.40s 0.79s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.40s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   17 (  10 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   37 (   9 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   37 (  17   ~;  13   |;   4   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    8 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   1 sgn   8   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_from_SUMO,conjecture,
    s__Class30_1 = s__Reptile,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_from_SUMO) ).

fof(kb_SUMO_1220,axiom,
    ! [X4,X5] :
      ( ( s__instance(X4,s__SetOrClass)
        & s__instance(X5,s__SetOrClass) )
     => ( ( s__subclass(X5,X4)
          & s__subclass(X4,X5) )
       => X4 = X5 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR003+0.ax',kb_SUMO_1220) ).

fof(kb_SUMO_26,axiom,
    ! [X6,X7] :
      ( s__subclass(X6,X7)
     => ( s__instance(X7,s__SetOrClass)
        & s__instance(X6,s__SetOrClass) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR003+0.ax',kb_SUMO_26) ).

fof(local_2,axiom,
    s__subclass(s__Class30_1,s__Reptile),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',local_2) ).

fof(local_3,axiom,
    s__subclass(s__Reptile,s__Class30_1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',local_3) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    s__Class30_1 != s__Reptile,
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_from_SUMO]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X813,X814] :
      ( X813 = X814
      | ~ s__subclass(X814,X813)
      | ~ s__subclass(X813,X814)
      | ~ s__instance(X813,s__SetOrClass)
      | ~ s__instance(X814,s__SetOrClass) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[kb_SUMO_1220])])]) ).

fof(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X801,X802] :
      ( ( ~ s__subclass(X801,X802)
        | s__instance(X802,s__SetOrClass) )
      & ( ~ s__subclass(X801,X802)
        | s__instance(X801,s__SetOrClass) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[kb_SUMO_26])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    s__Class30_1 != s__Reptile,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ s__subclass(X1,X2)
    | ~ s__subclass(X2,X1)
    | ~ s__instance(X2,s__SetOrClass)
    | ~ s__instance(X1,s__SetOrClass)
    | X2 = X1 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ s__subclass(X1,X2)
    | s__instance(X1,s__SetOrClass) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    s__Class30_1 != s__Reptile,
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ s__subclass(X1,X2)
    | ~ s__subclass(X2,X1)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    s__subclass(s__Class30_1,s__Reptile),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[local_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    s__subclass(s__Reptile,s__Class30_1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[local_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    s__Class30_1 != s__Reptile,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),c_0_15]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : CSR099+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36  % Computer : n015.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 15:01:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40  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
% 0.40/0.79  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.40/0.79  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.79  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % new_bool_3 with pid 1733470 completed with status 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.40/0.79  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.79  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.40/0.79  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.40/0.79  % Search class: FGHSS-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.79  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.79  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1733473 completed with status 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.40/0.79  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.79  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.40/0.79  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.40/0.79  % Search class: FGHSS-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.79  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.79  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.40/0.79  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.79  % Preprocessing time       : 0.006 s
% 0.40/0.79  
% 0.40/0.79  % Proof found!
% 0.40/0.79  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.40/0.79  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.40/0.79  % Parsed axioms                        : 14791
% 0.40/0.79  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 14377
% 0.40/0.79  % Initial clauses                      : 441
% 0.40/0.79  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 20
% 0.40/0.79  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 421
% 0.40/0.79  % Processed clauses                    : 627
% 0.40/0.79  % ...of these trivial                  : 219
% 0.40/0.79  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % ...remaining for further processing  : 408
% 0.40/0.79  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.40/0.79  % Generated clauses                    : 1047
% 0.40/0.79  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 651
% 0.40/0.79  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 5
% 0.40/0.79  % Paramodulations                      : 1047
% 0.40/0.79  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Total rewrite steps                  : 281
% 0.40/0.79  % ...of those cached                   : 258
% 0.40/0.79  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.40/0.79  % Current number of processed clauses  : 406
% 0.40/0.79  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 376
% 0.40/0.79  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.40/0.79  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.40/0.79  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 29
% 0.40/0.79  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 445
% 0.40/0.79  % ...number of literals in the above   : 609
% 0.40/0.79  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.40/0.79  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 326
% 0.40/0.79  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 231
% 0.40/0.79  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 5
% 0.40/0.79  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 78
% 0.40/0.79  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.40/0.79  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.40/0.79  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.40/0.79  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 128621
% 0.40/0.79  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 53686
% 0.40/0.79  
% 0.40/0.79  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.40/0.79  % User time                : 0.060 s
% 0.40/0.79  % System time              : 0.043 s
% 0.40/0.79  % Total time               : 0.103 s
% 0.40/0.79  % Maximum resident set size: 22112 pages
% 0.40/0.79  
% 0.40/0.79  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.40/0.79  % User time                : 0.313 s
% 0.40/0.79  % System time              : 0.066 s
% 0.40/0.79  % Total time               : 0.378 s
% 0.40/0.79  % Maximum resident set size: 15616 pages
% 0.40/0.79  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------