↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR135^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n026.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 : Wed Sep 30 07:46:37 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.06s 0.24s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.06s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    5 (   1 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :    1 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   0 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   25 (   5   ~;   2   |;   2   &;  16   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    8 (   8   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    4 (   3 usr;   4 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    4 (   0   ^;   2   !;   2   ?;   4   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_25,type,
    lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_27,type,
    lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_28,type,
    lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(con,conjecture,
    ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      & ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.3t86nkTjAQ/E---3.1_950757.p',con) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
        ( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X3: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ~ ( X3 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X3 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ~ ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(flex_resolve,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : CSR135^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.16  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.16  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.16  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.16  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.16  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.16  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.16  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.06/0.16  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:58:57 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.06/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.21  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.06/0.22  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.3t86nkTjAQ/E---3.1_950757.p
% 0.06/0.24  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.06/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.06/0.24  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % post_as_ho12 with pid 950790 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.06/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.06/0.24  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.06/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.06/0.24  % Search class: HUHNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.06/0.24  % partial match(2): HUHNF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.06/0.24  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % SubtermCWHack with pid 950796 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.06/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.06/0.24  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.06/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.06/0.24  % Search class: HUHNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.06/0.24  % partial match(2): HUHNF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.06/0.24  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.24  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.24  
% 0.06/0.24  % Proof found!
% 0.06/0.24  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.06/0.24  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.06/0.24  % Parsed axioms                        : 21
% 0.06/0.24  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Initial clauses                      : 21
% 0.06/0.24  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 9
% 0.06/0.24  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 12
% 0.06/0.24  % Processed clauses                    : 12
% 0.06/0.24  % ...of these trivial                  : 2
% 0.06/0.24  % ...subsumed                          : 1
% 0.06/0.24  % ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.06/0.24  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.06/0.24  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.06/0.24  % Current number of processed clauses  : 8
% 0.06/0.24  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 7
% 0.06/0.24  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.06/0.24  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.06/0.24  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.06/0.24  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.06/0.24  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 506
% 0.06/0.24  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 29
% 0.06/0.24  
% 0.06/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.24  % User time                : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.24  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.24  % Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.06/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.06/0.24  
% 0.06/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.24  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.06/0.24  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.06/0.24  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.06/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.06/0.24  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------