↑ Up

Enigma---0.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : KLE021+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 600s
% DateTime : Sun Jul 17 01:49:37 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.89s 2.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.89s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    9
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   23 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;  15 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   36 (  15 equ;  17 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   28 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_23,plain,
    ( complement(X1,X2)
    | c(X1) != X2
    | ~ test(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_23) ).

cnf(i_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(esk1_0,addition(multiplication(esk2_0,esk1_0),multiplication(c(esk2_0),esk1_0)))
    | ~ leq(addition(multiplication(esk2_0,esk1_0),multiplication(c(esk2_0),esk1_0)),esk1_0) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_5) ).

cnf(i_0_8,plain,
    addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X3,X2)) = multiplication(addition(X1,X3),X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_8) ).

cnf(i_0_19,plain,
    ( addition(X1,X2) = one
    | ~ complement(X2,X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_19) ).

cnf(i_0_2,plain,
    addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_2) ).

cnf(i_0_10,plain,
    multiplication(one,X1) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_10) ).

cnf(i_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    test(esk2_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_6) ).

cnf(i_0_12,plain,
    ( leq(X1,X2)
    | addition(X1,X2) != X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_12) ).

cnf(i_0_3,plain,
    addition(X1,X1) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-oncpdjaj/input.p',i_0_3) ).

cnf(c_0_33,plain,
    ( complement(X1,X2)
    | c(X1) != X2
    | ~ test(X1) ),
    i_0_23 ).

cnf(c_0_34,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(esk1_0,addition(multiplication(esk2_0,esk1_0),multiplication(c(esk2_0),esk1_0)))
    | ~ leq(addition(multiplication(esk2_0,esk1_0),multiplication(c(esk2_0),esk1_0)),esk1_0) ),
    i_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_35,plain,
    addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X3,X2)) = multiplication(addition(X1,X3),X2),
    i_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_36,plain,
    ( addition(X1,X2) = one
    | ~ complement(X2,X1) ),
    i_0_19 ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    ( complement(X1,c(X1))
    | ~ test(X1) ),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_33]) ).

cnf(c_0_38,plain,
    addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
    i_0_2 ).

cnf(c_0_39,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(esk1_0,multiplication(addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0)),esk1_0))
    | ~ leq(multiplication(addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0)),esk1_0),esk1_0) ),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_34,c_0_35]),c_0_35]) ).

cnf(c_0_40,plain,
    ( addition(X1,c(X1)) = one
    | ~ test(X1) ),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_36,c_0_37]),c_0_38]) ).

cnf(c_0_41,plain,
    multiplication(one,X1) = X1,
    i_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_42,negated_conjecture,
    test(esk2_0),
    i_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_43,negated_conjecture,
    ~ leq(esk1_0,esk1_0),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_39,c_0_40]),c_0_41]),c_0_41]),c_0_42])]) ).

cnf(c_0_44,plain,
    ( leq(X1,X2)
    | addition(X1,X2) != X2 ),
    i_0_12 ).

cnf(c_0_45,plain,
    addition(X1,X1) = X1,
    i_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_46,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_43,c_0_44]),c_0_45])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.13  % Problem  : KLE021+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.13/0.13  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.13/0.35  % DateTime : Thu Jun 16 12:51:22 EDT 2022
% 0.20/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.46  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.20/0.47  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 7.89/2.44  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 7.89/2.44  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.89/2.44  # Preprocessing time       : 0.011 s
% 7.89/2.44  
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof found!
% 7.89/2.44  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.89/2.44  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object total steps             : 23
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object clause steps            : 14
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object formula steps           : 9
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object conjectures             : 6
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 4
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 2
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 9
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 9
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object generating inferences   : 4
% 7.89/2.44  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 9
% 7.89/2.44  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.89/2.44  # Parsed axioms                        : 24
% 7.89/2.44  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Initial clauses                      : 24
% 7.89/2.44  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 24
% 7.89/2.44  # Processed clauses                    : 145
% 7.89/2.44  # ...of these trivial                  : 13
% 7.89/2.44  # ...subsumed                          : 37
% 7.89/2.44  # ...remaining for further processing  : 95
% 7.89/2.44  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 7.89/2.44  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Backward-subsumed                    : 1
% 7.89/2.44  # Backward-rewritten                   : 11
% 7.89/2.44  # Generated clauses                    : 1023
% 7.89/2.44  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 682
% 7.89/2.44  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 7
% 7.89/2.44  # Paramodulations                      : 1019
% 7.89/2.44  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Equation resolutions                 : 4
% 7.89/2.44  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Current number of processed clauses  : 83
% 7.89/2.44  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 32
% 7.89/2.44  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 7.89/2.44  #    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 7.89/2.44  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 47
% 7.89/2.44  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 553
% 7.89/2.44  # ...number of literals in the above   : 1049
% 7.89/2.44  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Current number of archived clauses   : 12
% 7.89/2.44  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 289
% 7.89/2.44  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 237
% 7.89/2.44  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 23
% 7.89/2.44  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13
% 7.89/2.44  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 60
% 7.89/2.44  # BW rewrite match successes           : 45
% 7.89/2.44  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.89/2.44  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 9857
% 7.89/2.44  
% 7.89/2.44  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.89/2.44  # User time                : 0.022 s
% 7.89/2.44  # System time              : 0.001 s
% 7.89/2.44  # Total time               : 0.023 s
% 7.89/2.44  # ...preprocessing         : 0.011 s
% 7.89/2.44  # ...main loop             : 0.012 s
% 7.89/2.44  # Maximum resident set size: 7136 pages
% 7.89/2.44  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------