↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LCL759-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n013.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 01:16:21 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 2.56s 1.00s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.56s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   11 (   8 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   17 (   0 equ;   9 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :   10 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   19 (  19 usr;  10 con; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   17 (   4 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja)))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_4) ).

cnf(cls_Beta_0,axiom,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,X1),X2),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB)))
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2))
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)),X2),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Beta_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X1))),c_Suc(X2))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja)))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,X1),X2),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB)))
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2))
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)),X2),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Beta_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja)))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,X1),X2),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB)))
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2))
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)),X2),X3,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    c_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X1))),c_Suc(X2))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    cls_conjecture_1 ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2))),
    cls_conjecture_3 ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : LCL759-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:01:51 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.14/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.44  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.44  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.56/1.00  % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.56/1.00  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.56/1.00  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % new_bool_1 with pid 3819023 completed with status 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 2.56/1.00  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.56/1.00  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.56/1.00  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.56/1.00  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 2.56/1.00  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3819032 completed with status 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 2.56/1.00  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.56/1.00  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.56/1.00  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.56/1.00  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 2.56/1.00  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.56/1.00  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 2.56/1.00  % Preprocessing time       : 0.008 s
% 2.56/1.00  
% 2.56/1.00  % Proof found!
% 2.56/1.00  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.56/1.00  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.56/1.00  % Parsed axioms                        : 637
% 2.56/1.00  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 232
% 2.56/1.00  % Initial clauses                      : 405
% 2.56/1.00  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 405
% 2.56/1.00  % Processed clauses                    : 3014
% 2.56/1.00  % ...of these trivial                  : 218
% 2.56/1.00  % ...subsumed                          : 2204
% 2.56/1.00  % ...remaining for further processing  : 592
% 2.56/1.00  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 129
% 2.56/1.00  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Backward-subsumed                    : 7
% 2.56/1.00  % Backward-rewritten                   : 27
% 2.56/1.00  % Generated clauses                    : 17203
% 2.56/1.00  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 13894
% 2.56/1.00  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Paramodulations                      : 17046
% 2.56/1.00  % Factorizations                       : 8
% 2.56/1.00  % NegExts                              : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Equation resolutions                 : 149
% 2.56/1.00  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Total rewrite steps                  : 17596
% 2.56/1.00  % ...of those cached                   : 16177
% 2.56/1.00  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 2.56/1.00  % Current number of processed clauses  : 558
% 2.56/1.00  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 133
% 2.56/1.00  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 2.56/1.00  %    Negative unit clauses             : 115
% 2.56/1.00  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 305
% 2.56/1.00  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 11235
% 2.56/1.00  % ...number of literals in the above   : 23965
% 2.56/1.00  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Current number of archived clauses   : 34
% 2.56/1.00  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11660
% 2.56/1.00  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9969
% 2.56/1.00  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 591
% 2.56/1.00  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1659
% 2.56/1.00  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 460
% 2.56/1.00  % BW rewrite match successes           : 38
% 2.56/1.00  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 2.56/1.00  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 282333
% 2.56/1.00  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1470
% 2.56/1.00  
% 2.56/1.00  % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.56/1.00  % User time                : 0.421 s
% 2.56/1.00  % System time              : 0.023 s
% 2.56/1.00  % Total time               : 0.444 s
% 2.56/1.00  % Maximum resident set size: 4612 pages
% 2.56/1.00  
% 2.56/1.00  % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.56/1.00  % User time                : 0.454 s
% 2.56/1.00  % System time              : 0.029 s
% 2.56/1.00  % Total time               : 0.483 s
% 2.56/1.00  % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 2.56/1.00  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------