↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : HEN008-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n003.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 12:45:38 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   24 (  14 unt;   0 nHn;  18 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   38 (  16 equ;  18 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   30 (   2 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(quotient_less_equal1,axiom,
    ( ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | divide(X1,X2) = zero ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN002-0.ax',quotient_less_equal1) ).

cnf(less_equal_and_equal,axiom,
    ( ~ less_equal(X2,X1)
    | ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN002-0.ax',less_equal_and_equal) ).

cnf(quotient_less_equal2,axiom,
    ( divide(X1,X2) != zero
    | less_equal(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN002-0.ax',quotient_less_equal2) ).

cnf(a_LE_b,hypothesis,
    less_equal(a,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_LE_b) ).

cnf(prove_a_divide_c_LE_b_divide_c,negated_conjecture,
    ~ less_equal(divide(a,c),divide(b,c)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_divide_c_LE_b_divide_c) ).

cnf(quotient_property,axiom,
    less_equal(divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2)),divide(divide(X1,X3),X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN002-0.ax',quotient_property) ).

cnf(zero_divide_anything_is_zero,axiom,
    divide(zero,X1) = zero,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',zero_divide_anything_is_zero) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | divide(X1,X2) = zero ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quotient_less_equal1]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ less_equal(X2,X1)
    | ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[less_equal_and_equal]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( divide(X1,X2) != zero
    | less_equal(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quotient_less_equal2]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | divide(X1,X2) = zero ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    less_equal(a,b),
    a_LE_b ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    ~ less_equal(divide(a,c),divide(b,c)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_divide_c_LE_b_divide_c]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ less_equal(X2,X1)
    | ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | X1 = X2 ),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( divide(X1,X2) != zero
    | less_equal(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
    less_equal(divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2)),divide(divide(X1,X3),X2)),
    quotient_property ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    divide(a,b) = zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
    divide(zero,X1) = zero,
    zero_divide_anything_is_zero ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    ~ less_equal(divide(a,c),divide(b,c)),
    c_0_12 ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    ( ~ less_equal(X1,X2)
    | divide(X2,X1) != zero
    | X1 = X2 ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    less_equal(divide(divide(a,X1),divide(b,X1)),zero),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    divide(divide(a,c),divide(b,c)) != zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
    divide(divide(a,X1),divide(b,X1)) = zero,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_17])]) ).

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
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : HEN008-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.35  % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.35  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:47:45 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.35  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40  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
% 0.13/0.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % new_bool_3 with pid 2578764 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41  % Search class: FHUSM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2578770 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41  % Search class: FHUSM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.41  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.13/0.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 2
% 0.13/0.41  % Initial clauses                      : 10
% 0.13/0.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 10
% 0.13/0.41  % Processed clauses                    : 26
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...subsumed                          : 5
% 0.13/0.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 21
% 0.13/0.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.13/0.41  % Generated clauses                    : 67
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 31
% 0.13/0.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Paramodulations                      : 67
% 0.13/0.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 54
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of those cached                   : 29
% 0.13/0.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 19
% 0.13/0.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 9
% 0.13/0.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.13/0.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 9
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.13/0.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 21
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.13/0.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 9
% 0.13/0.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.13/0.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 5
% 0.13/0.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.13/0.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 764
% 0.13/0.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 15
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.41  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------