↑ 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  : LCL748-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n003.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 01:23:14 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.27s 0.60s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   18 (  14 unt;   0 nHn;  10 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   22 (   8 equ;   7 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    9 (   9 usr;   3 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   2 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0,axiom,
    c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0) ).

cnf(cls_One__nat__def_0,axiom,
    c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat) = c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_One__nat__def_0) ).

cnf(cls_Lambda_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
    | c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Lambda_0) ).

cnf(cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0,axiom,
    c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X2,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
    c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(v_r,X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).

cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
    c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
    cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0 ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat) = c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),
    cls_One__nat__def_0 ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
    | c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Lambda_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X2,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
    cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0 ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),tc_nat) = c_Suc(X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
    | c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_Suc(X2))) = c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_7]),c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
    c_0_11 ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    ( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_Suc(X2)))
    | c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
    c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(v_r,X1)),
    cls_conjecture_1 ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : LCL748-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42  % Computer : n003.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
% 0.16/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.43  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:03:16 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
% 0.27/0.60  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % new_bool_1 with pid 3054320 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.27/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.60  % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.60  % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3054322 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.60  % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.60  % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.27/0.60  
% 0.27/0.60  % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.60  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.27/0.60  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.60  % Parsed axioms                        : 370
% 0.27/0.60  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 184
% 0.27/0.60  % Initial clauses                      : 186
% 0.27/0.60  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 186
% 0.27/0.60  % Processed clauses                    : 818
% 0.27/0.60  % ...of these trivial                  : 62
% 0.27/0.60  % ...subsumed                          : 545
% 0.27/0.60  % ...remaining for further processing  : 211
% 0.27/0.60  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 20
% 0.27/0.60  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Backward-rewritten                   : 21
% 0.27/0.60  % Generated clauses                    : 1982
% 0.27/0.60  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1557
% 0.27/0.60  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Paramodulations                      : 1951
% 0.27/0.60  % Factorizations                       : 4
% 0.27/0.60  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Equation resolutions                 : 27
% 0.27/0.60  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1326
% 0.27/0.60  % ...of those cached                   : 1151
% 0.27/0.60  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60  % Current number of processed clauses  : 190
% 0.27/0.60  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 53
% 0.27/0.60  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.27/0.60  %    Negative unit clauses             : 64
% 0.27/0.60  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 71
% 0.27/0.60  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 908
% 0.27/0.60  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1602
% 0.27/0.60  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Current number of archived clauses   : 21
% 0.27/0.60  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1384
% 0.27/0.60  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1352
% 0.27/0.60  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 80
% 0.27/0.60  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 820
% 0.27/0.60  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 124
% 0.27/0.60  % BW rewrite match successes           : 28
% 0.27/0.60  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.27/0.60  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 25476
% 0.27/0.60  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 866
% 0.27/0.60  
% 0.27/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.60  % User time                : 0.047 s
% 0.27/0.60  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.60  % Total time               : 0.057 s
% 0.27/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 4124 pages
% 0.27/0.60  
% 0.27/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.60  % User time                : 0.062 s
% 0.27/0.60  % System time              : 0.018 s
% 0.27/0.60  % Total time               : 0.079 s
% 0.27/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.27/0.60  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------