↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO014-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n001.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 12:26:52 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 5.46s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   11 (   7 unt;   0 nHn;   8 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   18 (   0 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   28 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(transitivity_for_equidistance,axiom,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X5,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X5,X6) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO002-0.ax',transitivity_for_equidistance) ).

cnf(reflexivity_for_equidistance,axiom,
    equidistant(X1,X2,X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO002-0.ax',reflexivity_for_equidistance) ).

cnf(prove_reflexivity,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(u,v,u,v),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_reflexivity) ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X5,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X5,X6) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[transitivity_for_equidistance]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X5,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X5,X6) ),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    equidistant(X1,X2,X2,X1),
    reflexivity_for_equidistance ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(u,v,u,v),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_reflexivity]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X4,X3,X1,X2)
    | equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(u,v,u,v),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    equidistant(X1,X2,X1,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GEO014-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.39  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.39  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.39  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.39  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.39  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.39  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.40  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/5.40  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:21:31 UTC 2026
% 0.15/5.40  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/5.40  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.44  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.44  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
% 0.15/5.46  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % new_bool_3 with pid 402210 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/5.46  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/5.46  % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % SubtermCWHack with pid 402213 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/5.46  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/5.46  % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.46  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/5.46  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.46  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % Proof found!
% 0.15/5.46  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/5.46  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/5.46  % Parsed axioms                        : 19
% 0.15/5.46  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 12
% 0.15/5.46  % Initial clauses                      : 7
% 0.15/5.46  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 7
% 0.15/5.46  % Processed clauses                    : 7
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % ...remaining for further processing  : 7
% 0.15/5.46  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.15/5.46  % Generated clauses                    : 4
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Paramodulations                      : 4
% 0.15/5.46  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.15/5.46  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.15/5.46  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.15/5.46  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.15/5.46  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 4
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.15/5.46  % ...number of literals in the above   : 15
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.15/5.46  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.15/5.46  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.15/5.46  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.15/5.46  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 7
% 0.15/5.46  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.15/5.46  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/5.46  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 391
% 0.15/5.46  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 105
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.46  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.15/5.46  % System time              : 0.000 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Maximum resident set size: 3656 pages
% 0.15/5.46  
% 0.15/5.46  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.46  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.15/5.46  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.15/5.46  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/5.46  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------