↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LAT168-1 : 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 : n016.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 01:04:22 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 22.80s 3.81s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 22.80s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    8
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   34 (  34 unt;   0 nHn;   4 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   34 (  33 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    6 (   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   :   78 (   8 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(absorption1,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption1) ).

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

cnf(absorption2,axiom,
    join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption2) ).

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

cnf(associativity_of_meet,axiom,
    meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',associativity_of_meet) ).

cnf(associativity_of_join,axiom,
    join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',associativity_of_join) ).

cnf(equation_H18_dual,axiom,
    meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)) = join(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),meet(join(X1,X3),join(X2,meet(X1,X3))))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',equation_H18_dual) ).

cnf(prove_H58,negated_conjecture,
    meet(a,join(b,c)) != meet(a,join(b,meet(join(a,b),join(c,meet(a,b))))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_H58) ).

cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
    absorption1 ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    commutativity_of_join ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
    absorption2 ).

cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
    commutativity_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    meet(X1,join(X2,X1)) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
    meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
    associativity_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
    join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
    associativity_of_join ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    join(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    meet(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = meet(X1,X2),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_10]),c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
    meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)) = join(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),meet(join(X1,X3),join(X2,meet(X1,X3))))),
    equation_H18_dual ).

cnf(c_0_18,plain,
    join(X1,join(meet(X1,X2),X3)) = join(X1,X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X2,X1)) = meet(X1,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,plain,
    join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(X3,join(X1,X2)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,plain,
    join(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),meet(join(X1,X3),join(meet(X1,X3),X2)))) = meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)) = meet(X2,meet(X1,X3)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_11]),c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,plain,
    meet(join(X1,X2),join(meet(X1,X3),X2)) = join(meet(X1,X3),X2),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_18]),c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    join(meet(X1,X2),join(meet(X2,X1),X3)) = join(meet(X1,X2),X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,plain,
    join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(X3,join(X2,X1)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,plain,
    join(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),join(meet(X1,X2),X3))) = meet(join(X1,X3),join(X1,X2)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_23]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,plain,
    join(X1,meet(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X3,X2),X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]),c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
    meet(a,join(b,c)) != meet(a,join(b,meet(join(a,b),join(c,meet(a,b))))),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_H58]) ).

cnf(c_0_29,plain,
    join(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),join(X3,meet(X2,X1)))) = meet(join(X1,X3),join(X1,X2)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]) ).

cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
    meet(a,join(b,c)) != meet(a,join(b,meet(join(a,b),join(c,meet(a,b))))),
    c_0_28 ).

cnf(c_0_31,plain,
    join(X1,meet(join(X2,X1),join(X3,meet(X2,X1)))) = meet(join(X1,X3),join(X2,X1)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_32,plain,
    meet(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),X3)) = meet(X1,X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_30,c_0_31]),c_0_11]),c_0_32])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : LAT168-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43  % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.43  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:21:38 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.16/0.43  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.50  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.50  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
% 22.80/3.81  % Version: 3.5.1
% 22.80/3.81  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 22.80/3.81  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1007683 completed with status 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 22.80/3.81  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 22.80/3.81  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 22.80/3.81  % No SInE strategy applied
% 22.80/3.81  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 22.80/3.81  % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting U----_206d_05_C11_08_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1007691 completed with status 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Result found by E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S
% 22.80/3.81  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 22.80/3.81  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 22.80/3.81  % No SInE strategy applied
% 22.80/3.81  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 22.80/3.81  % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Starting E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 22.80/3.81  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 22.80/3.81  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 22.80/3.81  
% 22.80/3.81  % Proof found!
% 22.80/3.81  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 22.80/3.81  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 22.80/3.81  % Parsed axioms                        : 10
% 22.80/3.81  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Initial clauses                      : 10
% 22.80/3.81  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 10
% 22.80/3.81  % Processed clauses                    : 7581
% 22.80/3.81  % ...of these trivial                  : 2786
% 22.80/3.81  % ...subsumed                          : 4424
% 22.80/3.81  % ...remaining for further processing  : 371
% 22.80/3.81  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Backward-rewritten                   : 23
% 22.80/3.81  % Generated clauses                    : 187634
% 22.80/3.81  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 127013
% 22.80/3.81  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Paramodulations                      : 187634
% 22.80/3.81  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % NegExts                              : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Total rewrite steps                  : 430919
% 22.80/3.81  % ...of those cached                   : 353208
% 22.80/3.81  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 22.80/3.81  % Current number of processed clauses  : 338
% 22.80/3.81  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 328
% 22.80/3.81  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 10
% 22.80/3.81  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 22.80/3.81  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 119414
% 22.80/3.81  % ...number of literals in the above   : 119414
% 22.80/3.81  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Current number of archived clauses   : 33
% 22.80/3.81  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 68
% 22.80/3.81  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 4323
% 22.80/3.81  % BW rewrite match successes           : 284
% 22.80/3.81  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 22.80/3.81  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3032265
% 22.80/3.81  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 22.80/3.81  
% 22.80/3.81  % -------------------------------------------------
% 22.80/3.81  % User time                : 3.056 s
% 22.80/3.81  % System time              : 0.120 s
% 22.80/3.81  % Total time               : 3.176 s
% 22.80/3.81  % Maximum resident set size: 3588 pages
% 22.80/3.81  
% 22.80/3.81  % -------------------------------------------------
% 22.80/3.81  % User time                : 15.442 s
% 22.80/3.81  % System time              : 0.597 s
% 22.80/3.81  % Total time               : 16.039 s
% 22.80/3.81  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 22.80/3.81  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------