↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO002-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n009.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 12:26:48 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 5.47s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   10 (   7 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   13 (   0 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   15 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(t1,axiom,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X3,X2,X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t1) ).

cnf(prove_a_between_a_and_b,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(a,a,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_between_a_and_b) ).

cnf(t3,axiom,
    between(X1,X2,X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t3) ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X3,X2,X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t1]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(a,a,b),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_between_a_and_b]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X3,X2,X1) ),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
    between(X1,X2,X2),
    t3 ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(a,a,b),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    between(X1,X1,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : GEO002-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.40  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.13/5.40  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/5.40  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/5.40  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/5.40  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/5.40  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/5.40  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/5.40  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:14:32 UTC 2026
% 0.13/5.40  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.13/5.40  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.45  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/5.45  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.13/5.47  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % new_bool_1 with pid 3233233 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.13/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/5.47  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/5.47  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47  % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3233239 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/5.47  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/5.47  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47  % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.47  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.13/5.47  
% 0.13/5.47  % Proof found!
% 0.13/5.47  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/5.47  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/5.47  % Parsed axioms                        : 47
% 0.13/5.47  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 25
% 0.13/5.47  % Initial clauses                      : 22
% 0.13/5.47  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 22
% 0.13/5.47  % Processed clauses                    : 8
% 0.13/5.47  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.13/5.47  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Generated clauses                    : 2
% 0.13/5.47  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.13/5.47  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47  % Current number of processed clauses  : 7
% 0.13/5.47  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.13/5.47  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.13/5.47  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.13/5.47  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.13/5.47  % ...number of literals in the above   : 50
% 0.13/5.47  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 8
% 0.13/5.47  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.13/5.47  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.13/5.47  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 748
% 0.13/5.47  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 169
% 0.13/5.47  
% 0.13/5.47  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.47  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.13/5.47  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.13/5.47  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.13/5.47  % Maximum resident set size: 3668 pages
% 0.13/5.47  
% 0.13/5.47  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.47  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.13/5.47  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.13/5.47  % Total time               : 0.011 s
% 0.13/5.47  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/5.47  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------