↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : KRS095+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n007.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 : Thu Sep 24 01:01:29 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.43s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   12 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   56 (  13 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   25 (   4 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   70 (  26   ~;  26   |;  14   &)
%                                         (   2 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   17 (   5 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   1 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   25 (   1 sgn  12   !;   4   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(axiom_2,axiom,
    ! [X4] :
      ( cUnsatisfiable(X4)
    <=> ( ! [X5,X6] :
            ( ( rr(X4,X6)
              & rr(X4,X5) )
           => X5 = X6 )
        & ? [X5,X6] :
            ( X5 != X6
            & rr(X4,X6)
            & rr(X4,X5) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_2) ).

fof(axiom_4,axiom,
    cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_14253),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_4) ).

fof(c_0_2,plain,
    ! [X4] :
      ( cUnsatisfiable(X4)
    <=> ( ! [X5,X6] :
            ( ( rr(X4,X6)
              & rr(X4,X5) )
           => X5 = X6 )
        & ? [X5,X6] :
            ( X5 != X6
            & rr(X4,X6)
            & rr(X4,X5) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_2]) ).

fof(c_0_3,plain,
    ! [X29,X32,X33,X34,X35,X36] :
      ( ( cUnsatisfiable(X34)
        | X35 = X36
        | ~ rr(X34,X36)
        | ~ rr(X34,X35)
        | esk3_1(X34) != esk4_1(X34) )
      & ( cUnsatisfiable(X34)
        | X35 = X36
        | ~ rr(X34,X36)
        | ~ rr(X34,X35)
        | rr(X34,esk4_1(X34)) )
      & ( cUnsatisfiable(X34)
        | X35 = X36
        | ~ rr(X34,X36)
        | ~ rr(X34,X35)
        | rr(X34,esk3_1(X34)) )
      & ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X29)
        | X32 = X33
        | ~ rr(X29,X33)
        | ~ rr(X29,X32) )
      & ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X29)
        | esk1_1(X29) != esk2_1(X29) )
      & ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X29)
        | rr(X29,esk2_1(X29)) )
      & ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X29)
        | rr(X29,esk1_1(X29)) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | ~ rr(X1,X3)
    | ~ rr(X1,X2)
    | X2 = X3 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | rr(X1,esk2_1(X1)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X2)
    | ~ rr(X2,X1)
    | X1 = esk2_1(X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | rr(X1,esk1_1(X1)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | esk1_1(X1) != esk2_1(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_14253),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[axiom_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1),
    inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : KRS095+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.36  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.36  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 22:51:37 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.13/0.43  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3760869 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.13/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.43  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.43  % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.43  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S4d with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3760882 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.13/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.43  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.43  % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.43  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.43  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.43  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.43  
% 0.13/0.43  % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.43  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.43  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.43  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.13/0.43  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Initial clauses                      : 22
% 0.13/0.43  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 10
% 0.13/0.43  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 12
% 0.13/0.43  % Processed clauses                    : 23
% 0.13/0.43  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % ...remaining for further processing  : 23
% 0.13/0.43  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Backward-subsumed                    : 5
% 0.13/0.43  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Generated clauses                    : 5
% 0.13/0.43  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.13/0.43  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 4
% 0.13/0.43  % Paramodulations                      : 4
% 0.13/0.43  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43  % Current number of processed clauses  : 5
% 0.13/0.43  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.43  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.13/0.43  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 3
% 0.13/0.43  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.13/0.43  % ...number of literals in the above   : 15
% 0.13/0.43  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Current number of archived clauses   : 19
% 0.13/0.43  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 55
% 0.13/0.43  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 27
% 0.13/0.43  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 4
% 0.13/0.43  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.13/0.43  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.13/0.43  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1497
% 0.13/0.43  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 343
% 0.13/0.43  
% 0.13/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.43  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.43  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.43  % Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.13/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 3592 pages
% 0.13/0.43  
% 0.13/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.43  % User time                : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.43  % System time              : 0.012 s
% 0.13/0.43  % Total time               : 0.023 s
% 0.13/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.43  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------