↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : KRS126+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n012.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 01:00:49 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.03s 10.36s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.03s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   17 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   34 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   32 (  15   ~;  11   |;   2   &)
%                                         (   2 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   1 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   21 (   2 sgn  12   !;   2   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(axiom_8,axiom,
    ! [X1] :
      ( cd1xcomp(X1)
    <=> ~ ? [X2] : ra_Px2(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_8) ).

fof(axiom_7,axiom,
    ! [X1] :
      ( cd1(X1)
    <=> ? [X3] : ra_Px2(X1,X3) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_7) ).

fof(axiom_3,axiom,
    ! [X1] :
      ( cUnsatisfiable(X1)
     => cd1(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_3) ).

fof(axiom_2,axiom,
    ! [X1] :
      ( cUnsatisfiable(X1)
     => cd1xcomp(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_2) ).

fof(axiom_11,axiom,
    cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_23554),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_11) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X21,X22,X23] :
      ( ( cd1xcomp(X23)
        | ra_Px2(X23,esk4_1(X23)) )
      & ( ~ ra_Px2(X21,X22)
        | ~ cd1xcomp(X21) ) ),
    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)],[axiom_8])])])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X17,X19,X20] :
      ( ( cd1(X19)
        | ~ ra_Px2(X19,X20) )
      & ( ra_Px2(X17,esk3_1(X17))
        | ~ cd1(X17) ) ),
    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)],[axiom_7])])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ ra_Px2(X1,X2)
    | ~ cd1xcomp(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ cd1(X1)
    | ra_Px2(X1,esk3_1(X1)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

fof(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X7] :
      ( cd1(X7)
      | ~ cUnsatisfiable(X7) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[axiom_3])])]) ).

fof(c_0_10,plain,
    ! [X6] :
      ( cd1xcomp(X6)
      | ~ cUnsatisfiable(X6) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[axiom_2])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ cd1xcomp(X1)
    | ~ cd1(X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | cd1(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1)
    | cd1xcomp(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_23554),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[axiom_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    ~ cUnsatisfiable(X1),
    inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01  % Problem  : KRS126+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.02  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/10.32  % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.03/10.32  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.03/10.32  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.03/10.32  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.03/10.32  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.03/10.32  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.03/10.32  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.03/10.32  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 22:54:34 UTC 2026
% 0.03/10.32  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.03/10.32  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/10.34  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.03/10.34  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.03/10.36  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.03/10.36  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.03/10.36  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1036790 completed with status 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.03/10.36  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.03/10.36  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.03/10.36  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.03/10.36  % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.03/10.36  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1036799 completed with status 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.03/10.36  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.03/10.36  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.03/10.36  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.03/10.36  % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.03/10.36  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.03/10.36  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.03/10.36  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.03/10.36  
% 0.03/10.36  % Proof found!
% 0.03/10.36  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.03/10.36  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.03/10.36  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.03/10.36  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Initial clauses                      : 18
% 0.03/10.36  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.03/10.36  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 17
% 0.03/10.36  % Processed clauses                    : 22
% 0.03/10.36  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % ...remaining for further processing  : 22
% 0.03/10.36  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 0.03/10.36  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Generated clauses                    : 13
% 0.03/10.36  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.03/10.36  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.03/10.36  % Paramodulations                      : 12
% 0.03/10.36  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.03/10.36  % Current number of processed clauses  : 19
% 0.03/10.36  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.03/10.36  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.03/10.36  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 17
% 0.03/10.36  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.03/10.36  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.03/10.36  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 43
% 0.03/10.36  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 43
% 0.03/10.36  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.03/10.36  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.03/10.36  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.03/10.36  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1032
% 0.03/10.36  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 222
% 0.03/10.36  
% 0.03/10.36  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.03/10.36  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.03/10.36  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.03/10.36  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.03/10.36  % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.03/10.36  
% 0.03/10.36  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.03/10.36  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.03/10.36  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.03/10.36  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.03/10.36  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.03/10.36  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------