↑ 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  : CSR103+6 : 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 : n005.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 12:18:55 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 5.31s 4.74s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 5.31s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    8 (   8 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :    8 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    3 (   3   ~;   0   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    5 (   1 sgn   4   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_from_ALL,conjecture,
    ! [X2341] : s__instance(X2341,s__Entity),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_from_ALL) ).

fof(kb_SUMO_27371,axiom,
    ! [X857] : s__instance(X857,s__Entity),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR003+2.ax',kb_SUMO_27371) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X2341] : s__instance(X2341,s__Entity),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_from_ALL]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ s__instance(esk1_0,s__Entity),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X2343] : s__instance(X2343,s__Entity),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[kb_SUMO_27371]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ s__instance(esk1_0,s__Entity),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    s__instance(X1,s__Entity),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : CSR103+6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.50  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.50  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.50  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.50  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.50  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.50  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.50  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.21/0.50  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:59:03 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.51  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.21/0.51  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.58  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.58  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
% 5.31/4.74  % Version: 3.5.1
% 5.31/4.74  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 5.31/4.74  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting new_bool_3 with 297s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting new_bool_1 with 297s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting sh5l with 297s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % new_bool_3 with pid 3767834 completed with status 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 5.31/4.74  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 5.31/4.74  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting new_bool_3 with 297s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 5.31/4.74  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 5.31/4.74  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 5.31/4.74  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 297 seconds (297 total)
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 27s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3767837 completed with status 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 5.31/4.74  % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 5.31/4.74  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting new_bool_3 with 297s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 5.31/4.74  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 5.31/4.74  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 5.31/4.74  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 297 seconds (297 total)
% 5.31/4.74  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 27s (1) cores
% 5.31/4.74  % Preprocessing time       : 0.068 s
% 5.31/4.74  
% 5.31/4.74  % Proof found!
% 5.31/4.74  % SZS status Theorem
% 5.31/4.74  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 5.31/4.74  % Parsed axioms                        : 55587
% 5.31/4.74  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 55445
% 5.31/4.74  % Initial clauses                      : 176
% 5.31/4.74  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 9
% 5.31/4.74  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 167
% 5.31/4.74  % Processed clauses                    : 45
% 5.31/4.74  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % ...remaining for further processing  : 44
% 5.31/4.74  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 5.31/4.74  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % NegExts                              : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 5.31/4.74  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 5.31/4.74  % Current number of processed clauses  : 43
% 5.31/4.74  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 43
% 5.31/4.74  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 5.31/4.74  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 122
% 5.31/4.74  % ...number of literals in the above   : 575
% 5.31/4.74  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 5.31/4.74  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 5.31/4.74  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 5.31/4.74  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 5.31/4.74  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 663214
% 5.31/4.74  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 292941
% 5.31/4.74  
% 5.31/4.74  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.31/4.74  % User time                : 0.268 s
% 5.31/4.74  % System time              : 0.170 s
% 5.31/4.74  % Total time               : 0.439 s
% 5.31/4.74  % Maximum resident set size: 137016 pages
% 5.31/4.74  
% 5.31/4.74  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.31/4.74  % User time                : 3.728 s
% 5.31/4.74  % System time              : 0.343 s
% 5.31/4.74  % Total time               : 4.071 s
% 5.31/4.74  % Maximum resident set size: 64000 pages
% 5.31/4.74  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------