↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : CSR139^2 : 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 : n003.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 07:46:38 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.11s 0.27s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   10
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   26 (  21 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   30 (  10 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :  119 (  23   ~;  14   |;   6   &;  74   @)
%                                         (   2 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   12 (   6 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   32 (  32   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    8 (   6 usr;   5 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   36 (   0   ^;  27   !;   9   ?;  36   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_31,type,
    lAnna_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_34,type,
    lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_36,type,
    lBob_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_39,type,
    lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).

thf(decl_40,type,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).

thf(decl_43,type,
    parent_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).

thf(con,conjecture,
    ? [X24: $i > $i > $o,X25: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i] :
      ( ( X25 @ X2 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      & ( X24 @ X2 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
      & ( X25 != X24 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p',con) ).

thf(ax_012,axiom,
    parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p',ax_012) ).

thf(ax,axiom,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p',ax) ).

thf(ax_025,axiom,
    ~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p',ax_025) ).

thf(ax_021,axiom,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p',ax_021) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X24: $i > $i > $o,X25: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i] :
        ( ( X25 @ X2 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X24 @ X2 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X25 != X24 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X24: $i > $i > $o,X25: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i] :
        ( ( X25 @ X2 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X24 @ X2 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
        & ( X25 != X24 ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X95: $i > $i > $o,X96: $i > $i > $o,X97: $i] :
      ( ~ ( X96 @ X97 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X95 @ X97 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
      | ( X96 = X95 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X25: $i > $i > $o,X24: $i > $i > $o,X1: $i] :
      ( ( X24 = X25 )
      | ~ ( X24 @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X25 @ X1 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_9,plain,
    parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_012]) ).

thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X99: $i,X98: $i,X25: $i > $i > $o,X24: $i > $i > $o,X1: $i] :
      ( ( ( X24 @ X98 @ X99 )
      <=> ( X25 @ X98 @ X99 ) )
      | ~ ( X25 @ X1 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X24 @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(arg_cong,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X24: $i > $i > $o] :
      ( ( X24 = parent_THFTYPE_IiioI )
      | ~ ( X24 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

thf(c_0_12,plain,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).

thf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: $i,X3: $i,X25: $i > $i > $o,X24: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i] :
      ( ( X24 @ X1 @ X2 )
      | ~ ( X25 @ X3 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X24 @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X25 @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI = parent_THFTYPE_IiioI,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

thf(c_0_15,plain,
    ~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_025]) ).

thf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X24: $i > $i > $o,X3: $i,X2: $i,X1: $i] :
      ( ( lBill_THFTYPE_i = X1 )
      | ~ ( X24 @ X2 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
      | ~ ( X24 @ X3 @ X1 ) ),
    inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_13]) ).

thf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X102: $i,X103: $i] :
      ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X102 @ X103 )
    <=> ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X102 @ X103 ) ),
    inference(arg_cong,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).

thf(c_0_18,plain,
    ~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).

thf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i,X1: $i] :
      ( ( lBill_THFTYPE_i = X1 )
      | ~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_9]) ).

thf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
      ( ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ X2 )
      | ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_17]) ).

thf(c_0_21,plain,
    likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_021]) ).

thf(c_0_22,plain,
    ~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).

thf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    lAnna_THFTYPE_i = lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_9]) ).

thf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
    parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).

thf(c_0_25,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]),c_0_24])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : CSR139^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.18  % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:58:14 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.18  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.18  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.23  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.25  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.jcxfovEkWe/E---3.1_2845689.p
% 0.11/0.27  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.11/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSMSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.27  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 2845738 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.11/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSMSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.27  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.27  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.27  % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.11/0.27  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting new_bool_3 with 146s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % sh5l with pid 2845750 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Result found by sh5l
% 0.11/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSMSSSNSSA.
% 0.11/0.27  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.27  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.27  % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.11/0.27  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.27  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.27  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.11/0.27  
% 0.11/0.27  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.27  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.27  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.27  % Parsed axioms                        : 71
% 0.11/0.27  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Initial clauses                      : 76
% 0.11/0.27  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 31
% 0.11/0.27  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 45
% 0.11/0.27  % Processed clauses                    : 124
% 0.11/0.27  % ...of these trivial                  : 7
% 0.11/0.27  % ...subsumed                          : 24
% 0.11/0.27  % ...remaining for further processing  : 93
% 0.11/0.27  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Backward-rewritten                   : 7
% 0.11/0.27  % Generated clauses                    : 74
% 0.11/0.27  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 65
% 0.11/0.27  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Paramodulations                      : 42
% 0.11/0.27  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Total rewrite steps                  : 31
% 0.11/0.27  % ...of those cached                   : 18
% 0.11/0.27  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.27  % Current number of processed clauses  : 47
% 0.11/0.27  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 24
% 0.11/0.27  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.27  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.11/0.27  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 20
% 0.11/0.27  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.11/0.27  % ...number of literals in the above   : 38
% 0.11/0.27  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % Current number of archived clauses   : 46
% 0.11/0.27  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 286
% 0.11/0.27  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 239
% 0.11/0.27  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 22
% 0.11/0.27  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% 0.11/0.27  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.11/0.27  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.11/0.27  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.11/0.27  % Condensation attempts                : 124
% 0.11/0.27  % Condensation successes               : 1
% 0.11/0.27  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 5909
% 0.11/0.27  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 497
% 0.11/0.27  
% 0.11/0.27  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.27  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.27  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.27  % Total time               : 0.012 s
% 0.11/0.27  % Maximum resident set size: 3692 pages
% 0.11/0.27  
% 0.11/0.27  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.27  % User time                : 0.031 s
% 0.11/0.27  % System time              : 0.012 s
% 0.11/0.27  % Total time               : 0.043 s
% 0.11/0.27  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.27  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------