↑ 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  : GRP148-1 : 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 : n018.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 12:42:40 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.16s 0.61s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   22 (  22 unt;   0 nHn;  11 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   22 (  21 equ;   4 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   22 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(ax_lub1c_2,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(b,c) = c,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_lub1c_2) ).

cnf(symmetry_of_lub,axiom,
    least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_lub) ).

cnf(glb_absorbtion,axiom,
    greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',glb_absorbtion) ).

cnf(associativity_of_lub,axiom,
    least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',associativity_of_lub) ).

cnf(prove_ax_lub1c,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ax_lub1c) ).

cnf(symmetry_of_glb,axiom,
    greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_glb) ).

cnf(ax_lub1c_1,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(a,c) = c,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_lub1c_1) ).

cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(b,c) = c,
    ax_lub1c_2 ).

cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
    least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
    symmetry_of_lub ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
    glb_absorbtion ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3),
    associativity_of_lub ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(c,b) = c,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_ax_lub1c]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X1)) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(c,least_upper_bound(b,X1)) = least_upper_bound(c,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
    greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
    symmetry_of_glb ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(a,c) = c,
    ax_lub1c_1 ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
    c_0_12 ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(c,X1),least_upper_bound(b,X1)) = least_upper_bound(b,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
    least_upper_bound(c,a) = c,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(c,least_upper_bound(a,b)) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_8]),c_0_8]),c_0_20]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GRP148-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.50  % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.50  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.50  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.50  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.50  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.50  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.50  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.50  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:04:43 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.50  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.51  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.55  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.55  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
% 0.16/0.61  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % new_bool_1 with pid 65807 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.16/0.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.61  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.61  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.61  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % SubtermCWHack with pid 65812 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/0.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.61  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.61  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.61  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.61  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.61  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.61  
% 0.16/0.61  % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.61  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/0.61  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.61  % Parsed axioms                        : 18
% 0.16/0.61  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 2
% 0.16/0.61  % Initial clauses                      : 16
% 0.16/0.61  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 16
% 0.16/0.61  % Processed clauses                    : 318
% 0.16/0.61  % ...of these trivial                  : 118
% 0.16/0.61  % ...subsumed                          : 94
% 0.16/0.61  % ...remaining for further processing  : 105
% 0.16/0.61  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Backward-rewritten                   : 14
% 0.16/0.61  % Generated clauses                    : 5067
% 0.16/0.61  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2379
% 0.16/0.61  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Paramodulations                      : 5067
% 0.16/0.61  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Total rewrite steps                  : 5806
% 0.16/0.61  % ...of those cached                   : 4093
% 0.16/0.61  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.16/0.61  % Current number of processed clauses  : 91
% 0.16/0.61  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 84
% 0.16/0.61  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.16/0.61  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.16/0.61  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2075
% 0.16/0.61  % ...number of literals in the above   : 2075
% 0.16/0.61  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Current number of archived clauses   : 14
% 0.16/0.61  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 16
% 0.16/0.61  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 266
% 0.16/0.61  % BW rewrite match successes           : 174
% 0.16/0.61  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.16/0.61  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 38510
% 0.16/0.61  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 8
% 0.16/0.61  
% 0.16/0.61  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.61  % User time                : 0.035 s
% 0.16/0.61  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.16/0.61  % Total time               : 0.040 s
% 0.16/0.61  % Maximum resident set size: 3588 pages
% 0.16/0.61  
% 0.16/0.61  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.61  % User time                : 0.036 s
% 0.16/0.61  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.16/0.61  % Total time               : 0.045 s
% 0.16/0.61  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.16/0.61  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------