↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO032-3 : 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 : n002.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 12:26:57 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 9.59s 1.82s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 9.59s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :   10
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   35 (  21 unt;   0 nHn;  33 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   69 (   0 equ;  37 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    7 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   6 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   72 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(d4_5,axiom,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X2,X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d4_5) ).

cnf(d4_4,axiom,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d4_4) ).

cnf(u_to_w_equals_u1_to_w1,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,w,u1,w1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',u_to_w_equals_u1_to_w1) ).

cnf(d12,axiom,
    ( ~ between(X3,X4,X6)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X5)
    | ~ equidistant(X5,X7,X6,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X7,X3,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X5,X3,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X2,X7,X4,X8) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d12) ).

cnf(u_to_v_equals_u1_to_v1,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,v,u1,v1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',u_to_v_equals_u1_to_v1) ).

cnf(d7,axiom,
    equidistant(X1,X1,X2,X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d7) ).

cnf(d2,axiom,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d2) ).

cnf(v_between_u_and_w,hypothesis,
    between(u,v,w),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v_between_u_and_w) ).

cnf(v1_between_u1_and_w1,hypothesis,
    between(u1,v1,w1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v1_between_u1_and_w1) ).

cnf(v_to_w_equals_v1_to_w1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(v,w,v1,w1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v_to_w_equals_v1_to_w1) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X2,X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d4_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d4_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X2,X1) ),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,w,u1,w1),
    u_to_w_equals_u1_to_w1 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ between(X3,X4,X6)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X5)
    | ~ equidistant(X5,X7,X6,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X7,X3,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X5,X3,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X2,X7,X4,X8) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d12]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X4,X3,X1,X2) ),
    c_0_11 ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    equidistant(w1,u1,w,u),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,v,u1,v1),
    u_to_v_equals_u1_to_v1 ).

cnf(c_0_18,plain,
    ( ~ between(X3,X4,X6)
    | ~ between(X1,X2,X5)
    | ~ equidistant(X5,X7,X6,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X7,X3,X8)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X5,X3,X6)
    | ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X2,X7,X4,X8) ),
    c_0_14 ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    equidistant(X1,X1,X2,X2),
    d7 ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,w,w1,u1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
    equidistant(v1,u1,v,u),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X6,X1,X5,X3)
    | ~ equidistant(X6,X2,X5,X4)
    | ~ between(X6,X1,X2)
    | ~ between(X5,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u1,w1,u,w),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u,v,v1,u1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_21]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d2]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,hypothesis,
    ( ~ equidistant(u1,X1,u,X2)
    | ~ between(u1,X1,w1)
    | ~ between(u,X2,w)
    | equidistant(X1,w1,X2,w) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
    equidistant(u1,v1,u,v),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_24]) ).

cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
    between(u,v,w),
    v_between_u_and_w ).

cnf(c_0_29,hypothesis,
    between(u1,v1,w1),
    v1_between_u1_and_w1 ).

cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(v,w,v1,w1),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[v_to_w_equals_v1_to_w1]) ).

cnf(c_0_31,plain,
    ( ~ equidistant(X1,X2,X3,X4)
    | equidistant(X3,X4,X1,X2) ),
    c_0_25 ).

cnf(c_0_32,hypothesis,
    equidistant(v1,w1,v,w),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]),c_0_28]),c_0_29])]) ).

cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equidistant(v,w,v1,w1),
    c_0_30 ).

cnf(c_0_34,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_32]),c_0_33]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : GEO032-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.36  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.36  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:30:19 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.41  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
% 9.59/1.82  % Version: 3.5.1
% 9.59/1.82  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.59/1.82  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % new_bool_1 with pid 708358 completed with status 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 9.59/1.82  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.59/1.82  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 9.59/1.82  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 9.59/1.82  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMS00-SFFFFFNN
% 9.59/1.82  % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMS33-SFFFFFNN
% 9.59/1.82  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % SubtermCWHack with pid 708363 completed with status 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 9.59/1.82  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.59/1.82  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 9.59/1.82  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 9.59/1.82  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMS00-SFFFFFNN
% 9.59/1.82  % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMS33-SFFFFFNN
% 9.59/1.82  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 9.59/1.82  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 9.59/1.82  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 9.59/1.82  
% 9.59/1.82  % Proof found!
% 9.59/1.82  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 9.59/1.82  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 9.59/1.82  % Parsed axioms                        : 71
% 9.59/1.82  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 32
% 9.59/1.82  % Initial clauses                      : 39
% 9.59/1.82  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 9.59/1.82  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 38
% 9.59/1.82  % Processed clauses                    : 12794
% 9.59/1.82  % ...of these trivial                  : 4
% 9.59/1.82  % ...subsumed                          : 10045
% 9.59/1.82  % ...remaining for further processing  : 2745
% 9.59/1.82  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 1
% 9.59/1.82  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Backward-subsumed                    : 66
% 9.59/1.82  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Generated clauses                    : 46713
% 9.59/1.82  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 34431
% 9.59/1.82  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 51
% 9.59/1.82  % Paramodulations                      : 46712
% 9.59/1.82  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % NegExts                              : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 9.59/1.82  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Total rewrite steps                  : 22597
% 9.59/1.82  % ...of those cached                   : 22406
% 9.59/1.82  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 9.59/1.82  % Current number of processed clauses  : 2678
% 9.59/1.82  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 26
% 9.59/1.82  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 9.59/1.82  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 9.59/1.82  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2651
% 9.59/1.82  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 21521
% 9.59/1.82  % ...number of literals in the above   : 127904
% 9.59/1.82  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Current number of archived clauses   : 66
% 9.59/1.82  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1726976
% 9.59/1.82  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1087718
% 9.59/1.82  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 10162
% 9.59/1.82  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 9.59/1.82  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 32
% 9.59/1.82  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 9.59/1.82  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 927617
% 9.59/1.82  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 228
% 9.59/1.82  
% 9.59/1.82  % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.59/1.82  % User time                : 1.341 s
% 9.59/1.82  % System time              : 0.019 s
% 9.59/1.82  % Total time               : 1.360 s
% 9.59/1.82  % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 9.59/1.82  
% 9.59/1.82  % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.59/1.82  % User time                : 1.342 s
% 9.59/1.82  % System time              : 0.025 s
% 9.59/1.82  % Total time               : 1.368 s
% 9.59/1.82  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 9.59/1.82  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------