↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO080-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n017.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 12:29:02 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.58s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   10 (   5 unt;   2 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   15 (   0 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   11 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(part_of_defn_3,axiom,
    ( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
    | part_of(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-0.ax',part_of_defn_3) ).

cnf(prove_reflexivity,negated_conjecture,
    ~ part_of(sk14,sk14),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_reflexivity) ).

cnf(part_of_defn_2,axiom,
    ( part_of(X1,X2)
    | incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-0.ax',part_of_defn_2) ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
    | part_of(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[part_of_defn_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ part_of(sk14,sk14),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_reflexivity]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
    | part_of(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
    ( part_of(X1,X2)
    | incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X1) ),
    part_of_defn_2 ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ part_of(sk14,sk14),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    part_of(X1,X1),
    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
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : GEO080-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.42  % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.42  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.42  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.42  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.42  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.42  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.42  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/0.42  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 10:01:55 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.43  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.43  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.53  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.53  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
% 0.26/0.58  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.58  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 3940540 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.26/0.58  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.58  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.58  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting G-E--_208_B07----S_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 166s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting new_bool_3 with 162s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting new_bool_1 with 158s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3940544 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.58  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.58  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.58  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.58  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58  % Preprocessing time       : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.58  
% 0.26/0.58  % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.58  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.58  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.58  % Parsed axioms                        : 49
% 0.26/0.58  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Initial clauses                      : 49
% 0.26/0.58  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 5
% 0.26/0.58  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 44
% 0.26/0.58  % Processed clauses                    : 26
% 0.26/0.58  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % ...subsumed                          : 2
% 0.26/0.58  % ...remaining for further processing  : 24
% 0.26/0.58  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.26/0.58  % Generated clauses                    : 15
% 0.26/0.58  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.26/0.58  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Paramodulations                      : 15
% 0.26/0.58  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.26/0.58  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58  % Current number of processed clauses  : 23
% 0.26/0.58  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 3
% 0.26/0.58  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.58  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.26/0.58  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 19
% 0.26/0.58  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 0.26/0.58  % ...number of literals in the above   : 106
% 0.26/0.58  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.26/0.58  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 70
% 0.26/0.58  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 61
% 0.26/0.58  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 0.26/0.58  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.26/0.58  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.26/0.58  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.26/0.58  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.26/0.58  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1734
% 0.26/0.58  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 128
% 0.26/0.58  
% 0.26/0.58  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.58  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.58  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.58  % Total time               : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.58  % Maximum resident set size: 3680 pages
% 0.26/0.58  
% 0.26/0.58  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.58  % User time                : 0.023 s
% 0.26/0.58  % System time              : 0.020 s
% 0.26/0.58  % Total time               : 0.043 s
% 0.26/0.58  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.58  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------