↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : ITP227^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.1.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 08:04:48 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 5.67s 3.92s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 5.67s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   3 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (  14 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   16 (  10   ~;   3   |;   3   &;   0   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of types       :    1 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    5 (   3 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0   ^;   0   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

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

thf(decl_829,type,
    ma: nat ).

thf(decl_830,type,
    mi: nat ).

thf(decl_834,type,
    xa: nat ).

thf(conj_0,conjecture,
    ( ( xa != mi )
    & ( xa != ma ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gRnq9cRw6Z/E---3.1_1771561.p',conj_0) ).

thf(fact_0_False,axiom,
    ~ ( ( xa = mi )
      | ( xa = ma ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.gRnq9cRw6Z/E---3.1_1771561.p',fact_0_False) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( xa != mi )
      & ( xa != ma ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( xa = mi )
    | ( xa = ma ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ( xa != mi )
    & ( xa != ma ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_0_False]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( xa = mi )
    | ( xa = ma ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    xa != ma,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_7,plain,
    xa != mi,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : ITP227^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.1.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.20  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.20  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.20  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.20  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.20  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.20  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.20  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.20  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 20:27:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.20  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.20  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.26  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 2.35/2.44  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.gRnq9cRw6Z/E---3.1_1771561.p
% 5.67/3.92  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 5.67/3.92  % partial match(1): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 5.67/3.92  % Preprocessing class: HMLMSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 5.67/3.92  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % new_bool_2 with pid 1771577 completed with status 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Result found by new_bool_2
% 5.67/3.92  % partial match(1): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 5.67/3.92  % Preprocessing class: HMLMSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 5.67/3.92  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 5.67/3.92  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 5.67/3.92  % Search class: HGHSM-SMLM32-DHFFFSBN
% 5.67/3.92  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1771578 completed with status 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 5.67/3.92  % partial match(1): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 5.67/3.92  % Preprocessing class: HMLMSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 5.67/3.92  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting new_bool_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 5.67/3.92  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 5.67/3.92  % Search class: HGHSM-SMLM32-DHFFFSBN
% 5.67/3.92  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 5.67/3.92  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 5.67/3.92  % Preprocessing time       : 0.087 s
% 5.67/3.92  
% 5.67/3.92  % Proof found!
% 5.67/3.92  % SZS status Theorem
% 5.67/3.92  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 5.67/3.92  % Parsed axioms                        : 11137
% 5.67/3.92  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 9354
% 5.67/3.92  % Initial clauses                      : 5565
% 5.67/3.92  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1767
% 5.67/3.92  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3798
% 5.67/3.92  % Processed clauses                    : 11
% 5.67/3.92  % ...of these trivial                  : 3
% 5.67/3.92  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % ...remaining for further processing  : 7
% 5.67/3.92  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % NegExts                              : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Total rewrite steps                  : 3
% 5.67/3.92  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 5.67/3.92  % Current number of processed clauses  : 7
% 5.67/3.92  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 4
% 5.67/3.92  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 5.67/3.92  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 5.67/3.92  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3787
% 5.67/3.92  % ...number of literals in the above   : 15502
% 5.67/3.92  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 5.67/3.92  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 5.67/3.92  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 509387
% 5.67/3.92  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 142470
% 5.67/3.92  
% 5.67/3.92  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.67/3.92  % User time                : 0.827 s
% 5.67/3.92  % System time              : 0.076 s
% 5.67/3.92  % Total time               : 0.903 s
% 5.67/3.92  % Maximum resident set size: 34916 pages
% 5.67/3.92  
% 5.67/3.92  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.67/3.92  % User time                : 1.348 s
% 5.67/3.92  % System time              : 0.106 s
% 5.67/3.92  % Total time               : 1.454 s
% 5.67/3.92  % Maximum resident set size: 27392 pages
% 5.67/3.92  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------