↑ 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  : GRP403-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 12:43:33 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.54s 0.60s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.54s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   10
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   17 (  17 unt;   0 nHn;   4 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   17 (  16 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    9 (   3 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   47 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
    multiply(X1,inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3)),inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2)))))) = X3,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).

cnf(prove_these_axioms_1,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_1) ).

cnf(c_0_2,axiom,
    multiply(X1,inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3)),inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2)))))) = X3,
    single_axiom ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    multiply(X1,inverse(multiply(inverse(X2),inverse(multiply(X3,multiply(inverse(X3),X3)))))) = inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X3)),X4)),X2)),inverse(multiply(X4,multiply(inverse(X4),X4))))),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3)),multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X4))),inverse(multiply(X3,multiply(inverse(X3),X3))))) = X4,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X1,inverse(multiply(inverse(X3),inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2))))))) = X3,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X1,X3))),inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2))))) = X3,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X1,X3)) = multiply(inverse(multiply(X4,X2)),multiply(X4,X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2))))),multiply(X1,X3)) = multiply(X4,multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X5,X2)),multiply(X5,X4))),X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),inverse(multiply(X3,inverse(multiply(multiply(X1,X3),multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X3)),multiply(X1,X3))))))) = inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2))),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    multiply(X1,multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X2,X3)),multiply(X2,X1))),X4)) = multiply(X5,multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X6,X3)),multiply(X6,X5))),X4)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X1,inverse(X3)))),inverse(multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(X2),X2)))) = X3,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_1]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = multiply(X2,multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X3,X4)),multiply(X3,X2))),inverse(multiply(X4,multiply(inverse(X4),X4))))),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
    c_0_12 ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = multiply(inverse(X2),X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GRP403-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.36  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.36  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:12:09 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.13/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.41  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.54/0.60  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.54/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.54/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % new_bool_1 with pid 73100 completed with status 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.54/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.54/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.54/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.54/0.60  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.54/0.60  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % SubtermCWHack with pid 73106 completed with status 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.54/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.54/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.54/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.54/0.60  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.54/0.60  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.54/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.54/0.60  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.54/0.60  
% 0.54/0.60  % Proof found!
% 0.54/0.60  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.54/0.60  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.54/0.60  % Parsed axioms                        : 2
% 0.54/0.60  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Initial clauses                      : 2
% 0.54/0.60  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 2
% 0.54/0.60  % Processed clauses                    : 93
% 0.54/0.60  % ...of these trivial                  : 4
% 0.54/0.60  % ...subsumed                          : 62
% 0.54/0.60  % ...remaining for further processing  : 27
% 0.54/0.60  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.54/0.60  % Generated clauses                    : 5522
% 0.54/0.60  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5058
% 0.54/0.60  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Paramodulations                      : 5521
% 0.54/0.60  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Total rewrite steps                  : 422
% 0.54/0.60  % ...of those cached                   : 260
% 0.54/0.60  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.54/0.60  % Current number of processed clauses  : 25
% 0.54/0.60  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 10
% 0.54/0.60  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 15
% 0.54/0.60  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.54/0.60  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4962
% 0.54/0.60  % ...number of literals in the above   : 4962
% 0.54/0.60  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.54/0.60  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 96
% 0.54/0.60  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 494
% 0.54/0.60  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 279
% 0.54/0.60  % BW rewrite match successes           : 21
% 0.54/0.60  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.54/0.60  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 346114
% 0.54/0.60  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 0.54/0.60  
% 0.54/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.54/0.60  % User time                : 0.134 s
% 0.54/0.60  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.54/0.60  % Total time               : 0.142 s
% 0.54/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.54/0.60  
% 0.54/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.54/0.60  % User time                : 0.135 s
% 0.54/0.60  % System time              : 0.014 s
% 0.54/0.60  % Total time               : 0.148 s
% 0.54/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.54/0.60  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------