↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LAT388+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n005.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 01:05:14 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.26s 0.52s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    7 (   6 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :    8 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    4 (   3   ~;   0   |;   1   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   4 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    4 (   1 sgn   1   !;   2   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
    ? [X1] : aSupremumOfIn0(X1,xT,xS),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).

fof(m__1330,hypothesis,
    ( aSupremumOfIn0(xp,xT,xS)
    & aFixedPointOf0(xp,xf) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1330) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1] : aSupremumOfIn0(X1,xT,xS),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X5] : ~ aSupremumOfIn0(X5,xT,xS),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,hypothesis,
    aSupremumOfIn0(xp,xT,xS),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1330]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ aSupremumOfIn0(X1,xT,xS),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : LAT388+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.42  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:57:47 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.16/0.42  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.49  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
% 0.26/0.52  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % new_bool_1 with pid 2100356 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.26/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.52  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.52  % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52  % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2100358 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.52  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.52  % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52  % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.52  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.52  % Preprocessing time       : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.52  
% 0.26/0.52  % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.52  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.52  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.52  % Parsed axioms                        : 31
% 0.26/0.52  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Initial clauses                      : 64
% 0.26/0.52  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 4
% 0.26/0.52  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 60
% 0.26/0.52  % Processed clauses                    : 13
% 0.26/0.52  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % ...remaining for further processing  : 13
% 0.26/0.52  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Generated clauses                    : 2
% 0.26/0.52  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Paramodulations                      : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.26/0.52  % Current number of processed clauses  : 12
% 0.26/0.52  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 9
% 0.26/0.52  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.52  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.26/0.52  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.26/0.52  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 48
% 0.26/0.52  % ...number of literals in the above   : 191
% 0.26/0.52  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.52  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.26/0.52  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 4543
% 0.26/0.52  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1262
% 0.26/0.52  
% 0.26/0.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.52  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.52  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.52  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.52  % Maximum resident set size: 3668 pages
% 0.26/0.52  
% 0.26/0.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.52  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.52  % System time              : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.52  % Total time               : 0.019 s
% 0.26/0.52  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.52  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------