↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : ITP031^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n026.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:05:19 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.20s 0.34s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (   7 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   21 (   5 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   80 (  11   ~;   2   |;   1   &;  62   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   4  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    4 (   3 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    9 (   7 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   10 (   0   ^;  10   !;   0   ?;  10   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
    a: $tType ).

thf(decl_sort2,type,
    set_a: $tType ).

thf(decl_sort3,type,
    int: $tType ).

thf(decl_27,type,
    binary504661350_eqs_a: ( a > int ) > a > set_a ).

thf(decl_46,type,
    ord_less_int: int > int > $o ).

thf(decl_58,type,
    member_a: a > set_a > $o ).

thf(decl_59,type,
    e: a ).

thf(decl_60,type,
    h: a > int ).

thf(decl_63,type,
    x: a ).

thf(decl_64,type,
    esk1_0: a ).

thf(conj_0,conjecture,
    ! [X42: a] :
      ( ( member_a @ X42 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
     => ( ( h @ X42 )
       != ( h @ x ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.aDLNgDmrP4/E---3.1_1084407.p',conj_0) ).

thf(fact_224_dual__order_Oirrefl,axiom,
    ! [X304: int] :
      ~ ( ord_less_int @ X304 @ X304 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.aDLNgDmrP4/E---3.1_1084407.p',fact_224_dual__order_Oirrefl) ).

thf(fact_0_eqsLessX,axiom,
    ! [X1: a] :
      ( ( member_a @ X1 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
     => ( ord_less_int @ ( h @ X1 ) @ ( h @ x ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.aDLNgDmrP4/E---3.1_1084407.p',fact_0_eqsLessX) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X42: a] :
        ( ( member_a @ X42 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
       => ( ( h @ X42 )
         != ( h @ x ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X42: a] :
        ( ( member_a @ X42 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
       => ( ( h @ X42 )
         != ( h @ x ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X304: int] :
      ~ ( ord_less_int @ X304 @ X304 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_224_dual__order_Oirrefl]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X1012: a] :
      ( ~ ( member_a @ X1012 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
      | ( ord_less_int @ ( h @ X1012 ) @ ( h @ x ) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_0_eqsLessX])])]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( member_a @ esk1_0 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) )
    & ( ( h @ esk1_0 )
      = ( h @ x ) ) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).

thf(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X1090: int] :
      ~ ( ord_less_int @ X1090 @ X1090 ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).

thf(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X1: a] :
      ( ( ord_less_int @ ( h @ X1 ) @ ( h @ x ) )
      | ~ ( member_a @ X1 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    member_a @ esk1_0 @ ( binary504661350_eqs_a @ h @ e ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( h @ esk1_0 )
    = ( h @ x ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_12,plain,
    ! [X86: int] :
      ~ ( ord_less_int @ X86 @ X86 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

thf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : ITP031^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.17  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.17  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.17  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.17  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.17  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:41:27 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.18  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.22  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.27  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.aDLNgDmrP4/E---3.1_1084407.p
% 0.20/0.34  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.20/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSLCHSA.
% 0.20/0.34  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting sh2 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting full_lambda_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting ehoh_best7_lambda with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting almost_fo_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % post_as_ho9 with pid 1084455 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Result found by post_as_ho9
% 0.20/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSLCHSA.
% 0.20/0.34  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting sh2 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting full_lambda_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting ehoh_best7_lambda with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1,0,2,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.20/0.34  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1,0,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.20/0.34  % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHSFFSBN
% 0.20/0.34  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1084461 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.20/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSLCHSA.
% 0.20/0.34  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting sh2 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting full_lambda_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting ehoh_best7_lambda with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1,0,2,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.20/0.34  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1,0,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.20/0.34  % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHSFFSBN
% 0.20/0.34  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.34  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.34  % Preprocessing time       : 0.005 s
% 0.20/0.34  
% 0.20/0.34  % Proof found!
% 0.20/0.34  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.20/0.34  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/0.34  % Parsed axioms                        : 404
% 0.20/0.34  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 240
% 0.20/0.34  % Initial clauses                      : 270
% 0.20/0.34  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 8
% 0.20/0.34  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 262
% 0.20/0.34  % Processed clauses                    : 277
% 0.20/0.34  % ...of these trivial                  : 18
% 0.20/0.34  % ...subsumed                          : 115
% 0.20/0.34  % ...remaining for further processing  : 144
% 0.20/0.34  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 41
% 0.20/0.34  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 0.20/0.34  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.20/0.34  % Generated clauses                    : 372
% 0.20/0.34  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 216
% 0.20/0.34  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Paramodulations                      : 332
% 0.20/0.34  % Factorizations                       : 6
% 0.20/0.34  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Equation resolutions                 : 42
% 0.20/0.34  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Total rewrite steps                  : 134
% 0.20/0.34  % ...of those cached                   : 85
% 0.20/0.34  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.20/0.34  % Current number of processed clauses  : 118
% 0.20/0.34  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 47
% 0.20/0.34  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.20/0.34  %    Negative unit clauses             : 22
% 0.20/0.34  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 48
% 0.20/0.34  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 196
% 0.20/0.34  % ...number of literals in the above   : 509
% 0.20/0.34  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.20/0.34  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 430
% 0.20/0.34  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 390
% 0.20/0.34  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 75
% 0.20/0.34  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 223
% 0.20/0.34  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 36
% 0.20/0.34  % BW rewrite match successes           : 9
% 0.20/0.34  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.20/0.34  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 24303
% 0.20/0.34  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 6614
% 0.20/0.34  
% 0.20/0.34  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.34  % User time                : 0.029 s
% 0.20/0.34  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.20/0.34  % Total time               : 0.038 s
% 0.20/0.34  % Maximum resident set size: 5480 pages
% 0.20/0.34  
% 0.20/0.34  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.34  % User time                : 0.043 s
% 0.20/0.34  % System time              : 0.013 s
% 0.20/0.34  % Total time               : 0.057 s
% 0.20/0.34  % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.20/0.34  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------