↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GRP592-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n008.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 12:40:19 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   15
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   24 (  24 unt;   0 nHn;   5 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   24 (  23 equ;   4 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :   10 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   41 (   0 sgn)

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

cnf(prove_these_axioms_4,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_4) ).

cnf(multiply,axiom,
    multiply(X1,X2) = inverse(double_divide(X2,X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).

cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
    double_divide(inverse(double_divide(double_divide(X1,X2),inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X3))))),X2) = X3,
    single_axiom ).

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

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X1))),inverse(X2)) = X2,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X2))),inverse(X1)) = X2,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    double_divide(inverse(X1),inverse(inverse(double_divide(X2,inverse(X1))))) = X2,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    double_divide(inverse(X1),inverse(inverse(X2))) = inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X2))),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(X2,inverse(X1))))) = X2,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    double_divide(inverse(X1),inverse(X2)) = inverse(double_divide(X1,X2)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    inverse(double_divide(double_divide(X1,inverse(X1)),X2)) = X2,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(X2,inverse(X2))))) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    inverse(double_divide(double_divide(X1,inverse(X2)),X1)) = X2,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    double_divide(double_divide(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    inverse(inverse(double_divide(double_divide(X1,X2),X1))) = X2,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_10]),c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    inverse(inverse(X1)) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
    c_0_15 ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    multiply(X1,X2) = inverse(double_divide(X2,X1)),
    multiply ).

cnf(c_0_20,plain,
    double_divide(double_divide(X1,X2),X1) = X2,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    inverse(double_divide(b,a)) != inverse(double_divide(a,b)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    double_divide(X1,X2) = double_divide(X2,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GRP592-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37  % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.12/0.38  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:18:09 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.12/0.38  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42  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
% 0.15/0.44  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3523730 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3523736 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Result found by U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44  % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Starting U----_116XG_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.44  
% 0.15/0.44  % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.44  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44  % Parsed axioms                        : 3
% 0.15/0.44  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Initial clauses                      : 3
% 0.15/0.44  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.15/0.44  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 2
% 0.15/0.44  % Processed clauses                    : 29
% 0.15/0.44  % ...of these trivial                  : 6
% 0.15/0.44  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % ...remaining for further processing  : 23
% 0.15/0.44  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Backward-rewritten                   : 12
% 0.15/0.44  % Generated clauses                    : 271
% 0.15/0.44  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 237
% 0.15/0.44  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Paramodulations                      : 271
% 0.15/0.44  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Total rewrite steps                  : 100
% 0.15/0.44  % ...of those cached                   : 31
% 0.15/0.44  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44  % Current number of processed clauses  : 9
% 0.15/0.44  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 8
% 0.15/0.44  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.44  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.44  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 207
% 0.15/0.44  % ...number of literals in the above   : 207
% 0.15/0.44  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Current number of archived clauses   : 15
% 0.15/0.44  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.15/0.44  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 56
% 0.15/0.44  % BW rewrite match successes           : 37
% 0.15/0.44  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/0.44  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 2617
% 0.15/0.44  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 0.15/0.44  
% 0.15/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.44  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.44  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.15/0.44  
% 0.15/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44  % User time                : 0.018 s
% 0.15/0.44  % System time              : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.44  % Total time               : 0.029 s
% 0.15/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.44  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------