↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : ITP157^1 : 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 : n001.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 08:04:32 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s 0.30s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (   8 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   14 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   66 (   6   ~;   2   |;   0   &;  57   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   1  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   11 (   7 avg)
%            Number of types       :    5 (   4 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    9 (   8 usr;   5 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (   0   ^;  12   !;   0   ?;  12   :)

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

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

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

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

thf(decl_69,type,
    prefer161218362good_a: a > set_a > set_Product_prod_a_a > set_a ).

thf(decl_89,type,
    product_Pair_a_a: a > a > product_prod_a_a ).

thf(decl_158,type,
    member449909584od_a_a: product_prod_a_a > set_Product_prod_a_a > $o ).

thf(decl_159,type,
    member_a: a > set_a > $o ).

thf(decl_160,type,
    b: set_a ).

thf(decl_161,type,
    pr: set_Product_prod_a_a ).

thf(decl_162,type,
    y: a ).

thf(decl_163,type,
    z: a ).

thf(conj_0,conjecture,
    member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ z @ y ) @ pr,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.M9dpj5mXbZ/E---3.1_1747526.p',conj_0) ).

thf(fact_8_at__lst__asgd__ge,axiom,
    ! [X29: a,X30: a,X31: set_a,X32: set_Product_prod_a_a] :
      ( ( member_a @ X29 @ ( prefer161218362good_a @ X30 @ X31 @ X32 ) )
     => ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ X29 @ X30 ) @ X32 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.M9dpj5mXbZ/E---3.1_1747526.p',fact_8_at__lst__asgd__ge) ).

thf(fact_0_assms,axiom,
    member_a @ z @ ( prefer161218362good_a @ y @ b @ pr ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.M9dpj5mXbZ/E---3.1_1747526.p',fact_0_assms) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ z @ y ) @ pr ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ z @ y ) @ pr ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X1299: a,X1300: a,X1301: set_a,X1302: set_Product_prod_a_a] :
      ( ~ ( member_a @ X1299 @ ( prefer161218362good_a @ X1300 @ X1301 @ X1302 ) )
      | ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ X1299 @ X1300 ) @ X1302 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_8_at__lst__asgd__ge])])]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ z @ y ) @ pr ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X29: a,X31: set_a,X30: a,X27: set_Product_prod_a_a] :
      ( ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ X29 @ X30 ) @ X27 )
      | ~ ( member_a @ X29 @ ( prefer161218362good_a @ X30 @ X31 @ X27 ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_8,plain,
    member_a @ z @ ( prefer161218362good_a @ y @ b @ pr ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[fact_0_assms]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( member449909584od_a_a @ ( product_Pair_a_a @ z @ y ) @ pr ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_10,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : ITP157^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.18  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.06/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 20:09:45 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.18  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.06/0.18  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.22  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.06/0.25  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.M9dpj5mXbZ/E---3.1_1747526.p
% 0.22/0.30  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.22/0.30  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNSFA.
% 0.22/0.30  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting full_lambda_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting post_as_ho6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % full_lambda_7 with pid 1747541 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.30  % Result found by full_lambda_7
% 0.22/0.30  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNSFA.
% 0.22/0.30  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting full_lambda_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,2.5,,3,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.22/0.30  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,2.5,,3,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.22/0.30  % Search class: HGHSM-FFMS31-DSFFFSBN
% 0.22/0.30  % partial match(2): HGHSM-FFMM31-DSFFFFBN
% 0.22/0.30  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1747546 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.30  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.30  % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNSFA.
% 0.22/0.30  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting post_as_ho9 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting full_lambda_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,2.5,,3,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.22/0.30  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,2.5,,3,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.22/0.30  % Search class: HGHSM-FFMS31-DSFFFSBN
% 0.22/0.30  % partial match(2): HGHSM-FFMM31-DSFFFFBN
% 0.22/0.30  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.30  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.30  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.30  
% 0.22/0.30  % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.30  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.30  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.31  % Parsed axioms                        : 527
% 0.22/0.31  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 488
% 0.22/0.31  % Initial clauses                      : 68
% 0.22/0.31  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 8
% 0.22/0.31  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 60
% 0.22/0.31  % Processed clauses                    : 86
% 0.22/0.31  % ...of these trivial                  : 13
% 0.22/0.31  % ...subsumed                          : 17
% 0.22/0.31  % ...remaining for further processing  : 56
% 0.22/0.31  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 36
% 0.22/0.31  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Backward-rewritten                   : 10
% 0.22/0.31  % Generated clauses                    : 121
% 0.22/0.31  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 57
% 0.22/0.31  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Paramodulations                      : 79
% 0.22/0.31  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Equation resolutions                 : 42
% 0.22/0.31  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Total rewrite steps                  : 60
% 0.22/0.31  % ...of those cached                   : 36
% 0.22/0.31  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.22/0.31  % Current number of processed clauses  : 46
% 0.22/0.31  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 19
% 0.22/0.31  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.31  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.22/0.31  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 26
% 0.22/0.31  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 20
% 0.22/0.31  % ...number of literals in the above   : 41
% 0.22/0.31  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Current number of archived clauses   : 10
% 0.22/0.31  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 59
% 0.22/0.31  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 59
% 0.22/0.31  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 17
% 0.22/0.31  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 61
% 0.22/0.31  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 10
% 0.22/0.31  % BW rewrite match successes           : 10
% 0.22/0.31  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/0.31  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 11887
% 0.22/0.31  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 5635
% 0.22/0.31  
% 0.22/0.31  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.31  % User time                : 0.014 s
% 0.22/0.31  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.31  % Total time               : 0.019 s
% 0.22/0.31  % Maximum resident set size: 5480 pages
% 0.22/0.31  
% 0.22/0.31  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.31  % User time                : 0.032 s
% 0.22/0.31  % System time              : 0.011 s
% 0.22/0.31  % Total time               : 0.043 s
% 0.22/0.31  % Maximum resident set size: 6144 pages
% 0.22/0.31  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------