↑ 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  : ITP119^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n005.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 08:05:35 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : ContradictoryAxioms 0.23s 0.34s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   18 (  18 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   18 (  11 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   48 (   4   ~;   0   |;   0   &;  44   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    8 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    7 (   0   ^;   7   !;   0   ?;   7   :)

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

thf(decl_80,type,
    a2: a ).

thf(decl_81,type,
    b: a ).

thf(decl_82,type,
    c: a ).

thf(decl_83,type,
    inf: a > a > a ).

thf(decl_84,type,
    less: a > a > $o ).

thf(decl_85,type,
    sup: a > a > a ).

thf(conj_1,hypothesis,
    ( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
    = b ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',conj_1) ).

thf(conj_2,hypothesis,
    ( a2
    = ( sup @ b @ c ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',conj_2) ).

thf(fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl,axiom,
    ! [X4: a] :
      ~ ( less @ X4 @ X4 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl) ).

thf(conj_4,hypothesis,
    ( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
    = c ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',conj_4) ).

thf(fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem,axiom,
    ! [X2: a] :
      ( ( sup @ X2 @ X2 )
      = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem) ).

thf(conj_3,hypothesis,
    less @ b @ ( sup @ b @ c ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p',conj_3) ).

thf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
    ( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
    = b ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).

thf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
    ( a2
    = ( sup @ b @ c ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_2]) ).

thf(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X4: a] :
      ~ ( less @ X4 @ X4 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl]) ).

thf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
    ( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
    = c ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_4]) ).

thf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
    ( ( inf @ c @ a2 )
    = b ),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_11,plain,
    ! [X1803: a] :
      ( ( sup @ X1803 @ X1803 )
      = X1803 ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem]) ).

thf(c_0_12,plain,
    ! [X1695: a] :
      ~ ( less @ X1695 @ X1695 ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])]) ).

thf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    less @ b @ ( sup @ b @ c ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_3]) ).

thf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
    c = b,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_7]),c_0_10]) ).

thf(c_0_15,plain,
    ! [X1: a] :
      ( ( sup @ X1 @ X1 )
      = X1 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).

thf(c_0_16,plain,
    ! [X1: a] :
      ~ ( less @ X1 @ X1 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).

thf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : ITP119^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.16  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.16  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.16  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.16  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.16  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.16  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.16  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.16  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:56:16 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.21  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.24  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.kL7YXDG8nk/E---3.1_2131045.p
% 0.23/0.34  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.23/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.34  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting sh10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting lpo5_rw_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % lpo5_rw_fix with pid 2131084 completed with status 9
% 0.23/0.34  % new_ho_10 with pid 2131080 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.23/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.34  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.34  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.34  % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHFFFSBN
% 0.23/0.34  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10 with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting post_as_ho6 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting almost_fo_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting lpo6_lambda_fix with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % new_ho_10 with pid 2131103 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.23/0.34  % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.34  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.34  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.34  % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHFFFSBN
% 0.23/0.34  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Starting new_ho_10 with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.34  % Preprocessing time       : 0.010 s
% 0.23/0.34  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.23/0.34  
% 0.23/0.34  % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.34  % SZS status ContradictoryAxioms
% 0.23/0.34  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.34  % Parsed axioms                        : 425
% 0.23/0.34  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Initial clauses                      : 990
% 0.23/0.34  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 90
% 0.23/0.34  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 900
% 0.23/0.34  % Processed clauses                    : 97
% 0.23/0.34  % ...of these trivial                  : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % ...subsumed                          : 16
% 0.23/0.34  % ...remaining for further processing  : 74
% 0.23/0.34  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 13
% 0.23/0.34  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Backward-rewritten                   : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % Generated clauses                    : 13
% 0.23/0.34  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15
% 0.23/0.34  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Equation resolutions                 : 13
% 0.23/0.34  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Total rewrite steps                  : 20
% 0.23/0.34  % ...of those cached                   : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.23/0.34  % Current number of processed clauses  : 55
% 0.23/0.34  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 40
% 0.23/0.34  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.34  %    Negative unit clauses             : 10
% 0.23/0.34  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 5
% 0.23/0.34  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 818
% 0.23/0.34  % ...number of literals in the above   : 2666
% 0.23/0.34  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Current number of archived clauses   : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.23/0.34  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 3
% 0.23/0.34  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% 0.23/0.34  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 7
% 0.23/0.34  % BW rewrite match successes           : 4
% 0.23/0.34  % Condensation attempts                : 97
% 0.23/0.34  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.23/0.34  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 64373
% 0.23/0.34  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 18646
% 0.23/0.34  
% 0.23/0.34  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.34  % User time                : 0.057 s
% 0.23/0.34  % System time              : 0.018 s
% 0.23/0.34  % Total time               : 0.075 s
% 0.23/0.34  % Maximum resident set size: 7856 pages
% 0.23/0.34  
% 0.23/0.34  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.34  % User time                : 0.120 s
% 0.23/0.34  % System time              : 0.067 s
% 0.23/0.34  % Total time               : 0.188 s
% 0.23/0.34  % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.23/0.34  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------