↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO007-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n011.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 12:26:50 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.65s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   25 (  17 unt;   5 nHn;  25 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   43 (   6 equ;  19 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   4 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   22 (   0 sgn)

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

cnf(b13,axiom,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X4)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X2,X4,X3)
    | between(X2,X3,X4)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b13) ).

cnf(a_between_a_and_c,hypothesis,
    between(d,a,c),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_between_a_and_c) ).

cnf(a_not_c,hypothesis,
    a != c,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_not_c) ).

cnf(a_between_a_and_e,hypothesis,
    between(e,a,c),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_between_a_and_e) ).

cnf(e_not_between_d_and_a,hypothesis,
    ~ between(d,e,a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',e_not_between_d_and_a) ).

cnf(prove_d_between_e_and_a,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(e,d,a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_d_between_e_and_a) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X3,X2,X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t1]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X4)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X2,X4,X3)
    | between(X2,X3,X4)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[b13]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X3,X2,X1) ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
    between(d,a,c),
    a_between_a_and_c ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    a != c,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[a_not_c]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ between(X1,X2,X4)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
    | between(X2,X4,X3)
    | between(X2,X3,X4)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    between(c,a,d),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
    a != c,
    c_0_11 ).

cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
    between(e,a,c),
    a_between_a_and_e ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    ( ~ between(c,a,X1)
    | between(a,d,X1)
    | between(a,X1,d) ),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    between(c,a,e),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    ~ between(d,e,a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[e_not_between_d_and_a]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
    ( between(a,e,d)
    | between(a,d,e) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    ~ between(d,e,a),
    c_0_18 ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(e,d,a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_d_between_e_and_a]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
    between(a,d,e),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_19]),c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    ~ between(e,d,a),
    c_0_21 ).

cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_22]),c_0_23]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GEO007-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.57  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.57  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.57  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.57  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.57  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.57  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.57  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.57  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:15:09 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.57  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.13/0.57  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.62  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.62  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
% 0.15/0.65  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.65  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 3384625 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.15/0.65  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.65  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.65  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.65  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_215_C46_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S2S with 901s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_S0a with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting new_bool_3 with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 146s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % new_bool_3 with pid 3384637 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.65  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.65  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.65  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.65  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_215_C46_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S2S with 901s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_S0a with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Starting new_bool_3 with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.65  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.65  
% 0.15/0.65  % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.65  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.65  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.65  % Parsed axioms                        : 83
% 0.15/0.65  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Initial clauses                      : 83
% 0.15/0.65  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 3
% 0.15/0.65  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 80
% 0.15/0.65  % Processed clauses                    : 228
% 0.15/0.65  % ...of these trivial                  : 5
% 0.15/0.65  % ...subsumed                          : 32
% 0.15/0.65  % ...remaining for further processing  : 191
% 0.15/0.65  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 4
% 0.15/0.65  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.15/0.65  % Generated clauses                    : 460
% 0.15/0.65  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 321
% 0.15/0.65  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Paramodulations                      : 456
% 0.15/0.65  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Equation resolutions                 : 4
% 0.15/0.65  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Total rewrite steps                  : 135
% 0.15/0.65  % ...of those cached                   : 84
% 0.15/0.65  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/0.65  % Current number of processed clauses  : 115
% 0.15/0.65  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 27
% 0.15/0.65  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.65  %    Negative unit clauses             : 14
% 0.15/0.65  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 74
% 0.15/0.65  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 235
% 0.15/0.65  % ...number of literals in the above   : 577
% 0.15/0.65  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Current number of archived clauses   : 75
% 0.15/0.65  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2933
% 0.15/0.65  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2274
% 0.15/0.65  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 30
% 0.15/0.65  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 49
% 0.15/0.65  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 157
% 0.15/0.65  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.15/0.65  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/0.65  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 8059
% 0.15/0.65  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 197
% 0.15/0.65  
% 0.15/0.65  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.65  % User time                : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.65  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.65  % Total time               : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.65  % Maximum resident set size: 3696 pages
% 0.15/0.65  
% 0.15/0.65  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.65  % User time                : 0.053 s
% 0.15/0.65  % System time              : 0.017 s
% 0.15/0.65  % Total time               : 0.071 s
% 0.15/0.65  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.65  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------