↑ Up

Enigma---0.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : LCL540+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n011.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 : Mon Sep  7 11:44:58 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 17.93s 5.66s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 17.93s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    8
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   24 (  11 unt;   4 nHn;  20 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   43 (   0 equ;  18 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   4 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_97,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(X1)
    | ~ modus_ponens
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X2)
    | ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X2,X1)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_97) ).

cnf(i_0_68,plain,
    modus_ponens,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_68) ).

cnf(i_0_10,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X2,and(X1,X2))))
    | ~ and_3 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_10) ).

cnf(i_0_61,plain,
    and_3,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_61) ).

cnf(i_0_1,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | ~ is_a_theorem(and(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_1) ).

cnf(i_0_132,negated_conjecture,
    ~ adjunction,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_132) ).

cnf(i_0_2,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | is_a_theorem(esk2_0) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_2) ).

cnf(i_0_3,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | is_a_theorem(esk1_0) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-wocq802n/input.p',i_0_3) ).

cnf(c_0_141,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(X1)
    | ~ modus_ponens
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X2)
    | ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X2,X1)) ),
    i_0_97 ).

cnf(c_0_142,plain,
    modus_ponens,
    i_0_68 ).

cnf(c_0_143,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X2,and(X1,X2))))
    | ~ and_3 ),
    i_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_144,plain,
    and_3,
    i_0_61 ).

cnf(c_0_145,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(X1)
    | ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X2,X1))
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X2) ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_141,c_0_142])]) ).

cnf(c_0_146,plain,
    is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X2,and(X1,X2)))),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_143,c_0_144])]) ).

cnf(c_0_147,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | ~ is_a_theorem(and(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ),
    i_0_1 ).

cnf(c_0_148,negated_conjecture,
    ~ adjunction,
    i_0_132 ).

cnf(c_0_149,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(implies(X1,and(X2,X1)))
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_145,c_0_146]) ).

cnf(c_0_150,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | is_a_theorem(esk2_0) ),
    i_0_2 ).

cnf(c_0_151,plain,
    ( adjunction
    | is_a_theorem(esk1_0) ),
    i_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_152,plain,
    ~ is_a_theorem(and(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_147,c_0_148]) ).

cnf(c_0_153,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(and(X1,X2))
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X2)
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_145,c_0_149]) ).

cnf(c_0_154,plain,
    is_a_theorem(esk2_0),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_150,c_0_148]) ).

cnf(c_0_155,plain,
    is_a_theorem(esk1_0),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_151,c_0_148]) ).

cnf(c_0_156,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_152,c_0_153]),c_0_154]),c_0_155])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : LCL540+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.18/0.43  % Computer : n011.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
% 0.18/0.44  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/0.44  % DateTime : Fri Sep  4 16:02:30 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.26/0.58  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.26/0.59  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.26/0.59  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.26/0.59  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.26/0.59  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 17.93/5.66  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y:
% 17.93/5.66  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 17.93/5.66  # Preprocessing time       : 0.018 s
% 17.93/5.66  
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof found!
% 17.93/5.66  # SZS status Theorem
% 17.93/5.66  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object total steps             : 24
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object clause steps            : 16
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object formula steps           : 8
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object conjectures             : 2
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 1
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 1
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 8
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 8
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object generating inferences   : 3
% 17.93/5.66  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 10
% 17.93/5.66  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 17.93/5.66  # Parsed axioms                        : 144
% 17.93/5.66  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Initial clauses                      : 144
% 17.93/5.66  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 144
% 17.93/5.66  # Processed clauses                    : 250
% 17.93/5.66  # ...of these trivial                  : 29
% 17.93/5.66  # ...subsumed                          : 8
% 17.93/5.66  # ...remaining for further processing  : 213
% 17.93/5.66  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Backward-subsumed                    : 1
% 17.93/5.66  # Backward-rewritten                   : 8
% 17.93/5.66  # Generated clauses                    : 1045
% 17.93/5.66  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 996
% 17.93/5.66  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 4
% 17.93/5.66  # Paramodulations                      : 1045
% 17.93/5.66  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Current number of processed clauses  : 204
% 17.93/5.66  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 63
% 17.93/5.66  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 17.93/5.66  #    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 17.93/5.66  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 138
% 17.93/5.66  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 875
% 17.93/5.66  # ...number of literals in the above   : 2210
% 17.93/5.66  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Current number of archived clauses   : 9
% 17.93/5.66  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1825
% 17.93/5.66  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1542
% 17.93/5.66  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 12
% 17.93/5.66  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 193
% 17.93/5.66  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 33
% 17.93/5.66  # BW rewrite match successes           : 5
% 17.93/5.66  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 17.93/5.66  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 14605
% 17.93/5.66  
% 17.93/5.66  # -------------------------------------------------
% 17.93/5.66  # User time                : 0.039 s
% 17.93/5.66  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 17.93/5.66  # Total time               : 0.042 s
% 17.93/5.66  # ...preprocessing         : 0.018 s
% 17.93/5.66  # ...main loop             : 0.023 s
% 17.93/5.66  # Maximum resident set size: 8448 pages
% 17.93/5.66  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------