↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.CAX-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : ITP040^1 : 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 : n014.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 08:05:20 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : ContradictoryAxioms 0.21s 0.35s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   10 (   7 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   13 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   50 (   6   ~;   2   |;   0   &;  41   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   1  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    5 (   4 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    7 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    9 (   0   ^;   9   !;   0   ?;   9   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
    denota231621370t_unit: $tType ).

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

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

thf(decl_sort4,type,
    c: $tType ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    denota540094197_a_b_c: denota231621370t_unit > oDE_a_c > set_c ).

thf(decl_126,type,
    static_FVO_a_c: oDE_a_c > set_c ).

thf(decl_154,type,
    member_c: c > set_c > $o ).

thf(decl_155,type,
    i: denota231621370t_unit ).

thf(decl_157,type,
    oDEa: oDE_a_c ).

thf(decl_164,type,
    i2: c ).

thf(conj_2,hypothesis,
    ~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ce7ieSOr3S/E---3.1_3119479.p',conj_2) ).

thf(fact_0_ode__to__fvo,axiom,
    ! [X1: c,X2: denota231621370t_unit,X3: oDE_a_c] :
      ( ( member_c @ X1 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X2 @ X3 ) )
     => ( member_c @ X1 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X3 ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ce7ieSOr3S/E---3.1_3119479.p',fact_0_ode__to__fvo) ).

thf(conj_1,hypothesis,
    member_c @ i2 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ i @ oDEa ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ce7ieSOr3S/E---3.1_3119479.p',conj_1) ).

thf(c_0_3,hypothesis,
    ~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[conj_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X1049: c,X1050: denota231621370t_unit,X1051: oDE_a_c] :
      ( ~ ( member_c @ X1049 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X1050 @ X1051 ) )
      | ( member_c @ X1049 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X1051 ) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_0_ode__to__fvo])])]) ).

thf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
    ~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X1: c,X2: denota231621370t_unit,X3: oDE_a_c] :
      ( ( member_c @ X1 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X3 ) )
      | ~ ( member_c @ X1 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X2 @ X3 ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
    member_c @ i2 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ i @ oDEa ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).

thf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
    ~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : ITP040^1 : 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 : n014.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
% 0.08/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:40:14 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.18  % 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
% 0.21/0.29  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.ce7ieSOr3S/E---3.1_3119479.p
% 0.21/0.35  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.21/0.35  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.21/0.35  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % full_lambda_4 with pid 3119498 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Result found by full_lambda_4
% 0.21/0.35  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.21/0.35  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.35  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.35  % Search class: HGUSM-FFMM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.21/0.35  % partial match(3): HGHSM-FSLM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.21/0.35  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3119501 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.35  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.21/0.35  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.35  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.35  % Search class: HGUSM-FFMM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.21/0.35  % partial match(3): HGHSM-FSLM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.21/0.35  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.35  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.35  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.35  
% 0.21/0.35  % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.35  % SZS status ContradictoryAxioms
% 0.21/0.35  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.35  % Parsed axioms                        : 547
% 0.21/0.35  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 479
% 0.21/0.35  % Initial clauses                      : 115
% 0.21/0.35  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 19
% 0.21/0.35  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 96
% 0.21/0.35  % Processed clauses                    : 46
% 0.21/0.35  % ...of these trivial                  : 5
% 0.21/0.35  % ...subsumed                          : 7
% 0.21/0.35  % ...remaining for further processing  : 34
% 0.21/0.35  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 4
% 0.21/0.35  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 0.21/0.35  % Generated clauses                    : 27
% 0.21/0.35  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 18
% 0.21/0.35  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Paramodulations                      : 21
% 0.21/0.35  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Equation resolutions                 : 6
% 0.21/0.35  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Total rewrite steps                  : 18
% 0.21/0.35  % ...of those cached                   : 8
% 0.21/0.35  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.21/0.35  % Current number of processed clauses  : 30
% 0.21/0.35  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 19
% 0.21/0.35  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.21/0.35  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.21/0.35  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 6
% 0.21/0.35  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 66
% 0.21/0.35  % ...number of literals in the above   : 147
% 0.21/0.35  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.21/0.35  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.21/0.35  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.21/0.35  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.21/0.35  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 16
% 0.21/0.35  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 6
% 0.21/0.35  % BW rewrite match successes           : 6
% 0.21/0.35  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/0.35  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 17236
% 0.21/0.35  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 5200
% 0.21/0.35  
% 0.21/0.35  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.35  % User time                : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.35  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.35  % Total time               : 0.020 s
% 0.21/0.35  % Maximum resident set size: 5316 pages
% 0.21/0.35  
% 0.21/0.35  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.35  % User time                : 0.026 s
% 0.21/0.35  % System time              : 0.020 s
% 0.21/0.35  % Total time               : 0.047 s
% 0.21/0.35  % Maximum resident set size: 6144 pages
% 0.21/0.35  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------