↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR136^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n006.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 0.11s 0.24s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (  10 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   10 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   0 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   61 (  11   ~;   4   |;   4   &;  42   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    8 (   8   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    5 (   4 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   0   ^;  12   !;   2   ?;  14   :)

% 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(decl_29,type,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).

thf(con,conjecture,
    ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      & ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      & ~ ! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.w2XkkIVgnG/E---3.1_1093138.p',con) ).

thf(ax_001,axiom,
    ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.w2XkkIVgnG/E---3.1_1093138.p',ax_001) ).

thf(ax_002,axiom,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.w2XkkIVgnG/E---3.1_1093138.p',ax_002) ).

thf(ax,axiom,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.w2XkkIVgnG/E---3.1_1093138.p',ax) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
        ( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
        & ~ ! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

thf(c_0_5,plain,
    ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_001]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X7: $i > $i > $o,X8: $i,X9: $i] :
      ( ~ ( X7 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X7 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ( X7 @ X8 @ X9 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_7,plain,
    ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X3: $i,X2: $i,X1: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_9,plain,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_002]) ).

thf(c_0_10,plain,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).

thf(c_0_11,plain,
    ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2 @ X3 ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).

thf(c_0_13,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : CSR136^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.17  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.17  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.17  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.17  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.17  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:55:39 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.20  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.22  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.w2XkkIVgnG/E---3.1_1093138.p
% 0.11/0.23  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.11/0.23  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.23  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % new_bool_9 with pid 1093166 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.23  % Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.11/0.23  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.23  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.23  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.23  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.23  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFFSBN
% 0.11/0.23  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.24  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1093172 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.24  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.24  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.24  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.24  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.24  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFFSBN
% 0.11/0.24  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.24  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.24  
% 0.11/0.24  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.24  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.24  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.24  % Parsed axioms                        : 18
% 0.11/0.24  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 14
% 0.11/0.24  % Initial clauses                      : 4
% 0.11/0.24  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 4
% 0.11/0.24  % Processed clauses                    : 5
% 0.11/0.24  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % ...remaining for further processing  : 5
% 0.11/0.24  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Backward-rewritten                   : 3
% 0.11/0.24  % Generated clauses                    : 2
% 0.11/0.24  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.11/0.24  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.11/0.24  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Total rewrite steps                  : 4
% 0.11/0.24  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.24  % Current number of processed clauses  : 2
% 0.11/0.24  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.11/0.24  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.24  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 1
% 0.11/0.24  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.24  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.11/0.24  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 3
% 0.11/0.24  % BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 0.11/0.24  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.11/0.24  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 349
% 0.11/0.24  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 61
% 0.11/0.24  
% 0.11/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.24  % User time                : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.24  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.24  % Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 3836 pages
% 0.11/0.24  
% 0.11/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.24  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.11/0.24  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.24  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.24  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------