↑ 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  : LAT039-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n026.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 01:05:24 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.54s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   12 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   12 (  11 equ;   4 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   11 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rhs,negated_conjecture,
    join(xx,meet(yy,zz)) != meet(join(xx,yy),join(xx,zz)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',rhs) ).

cnf(lhs,hypothesis,
    join(xx,yy) = yy,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lhs) ).

cnf(dist_join,hypothesis,
    join(X1,meet(X2,X3)) = meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',dist_join) ).

cnf(commutativity_of_meet,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',commutativity_of_meet) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    join(xx,meet(yy,zz)) != meet(join(xx,yy),join(xx,zz)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rhs]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    join(xx,meet(yy,zz)) != meet(join(xx,yy),join(xx,zz)),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
    join(xx,yy) = yy,
    lhs ).

cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
    join(X1,meet(X2,X3)) = meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)),
    dist_join ).

cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
    commutativity_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    meet(yy,join(xx,zz)) != join(xx,meet(yy,zz)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
    meet(yy,join(xx,X1)) = join(xx,meet(X1,yy)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]),c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_8])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : LAT039-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.43  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.43  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.43  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.43  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.43  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/0.43  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:10:36 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.44  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.48  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.49  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
% 0.26/0.54  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % sh5l with pid 794247 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Result found by sh5l
% 0.26/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.54  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.54  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % SubtermCWHack with pid 794255 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.54  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.54  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.26/0.54  
% 0.26/0.54  % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.54  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.54  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.54  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.26/0.54  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Initial clauses                      : 12
% 0.26/0.54  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 12
% 0.26/0.54  % Processed clauses                    : 201
% 0.26/0.54  % ...of these trivial                  : 64
% 0.26/0.54  % ...subsumed                          : 66
% 0.26/0.54  % ...remaining for further processing  : 71
% 0.26/0.54  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 0.26/0.54  % Generated clauses                    : 3147
% 0.26/0.54  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1622
% 0.26/0.54  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Paramodulations                      : 3147
% 0.26/0.54  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Total rewrite steps                  : 3834
% 0.26/0.54  % ...of those cached                   : 2623
% 0.26/0.54  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54  % Current number of processed clauses  : 67
% 0.26/0.54  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 61
% 0.26/0.54  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.26/0.54  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.54  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1431
% 0.26/0.54  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1431
% 0.26/0.54  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.26/0.54  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.26/0.54  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 171
% 0.26/0.54  % BW rewrite match successes           : 104
% 0.26/0.54  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.26/0.54  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 25142
% 0.26/0.54  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 0.26/0.54  
% 0.26/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54  % User time                : 0.021 s
% 0.26/0.54  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.54  % Total time               : 0.027 s
% 0.26/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.26/0.54  
% 0.26/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54  % User time                : 0.022 s
% 0.26/0.54  % System time              : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.54  % Total time               : 0.033 s
% 0.26/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.54  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------