↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LCL794-1 : 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 : n010.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 01:16:27 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 5.37s 1.23s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 5.37s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   21 (  14 unt;   0 nHn;  13 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   32 (   4 equ;  15 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   16 (  16 usr;  10 con; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   49 (   9 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_App_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
    | ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_App_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_T_0,axiom,
    v_T____ = hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_T_0) ).

cnf(cls_typing_OVar_0,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing_OVar_0) ).

cnf(cls_shift__eq_0,axiom,
    hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_shift__eq_0) ).

cnf(cls_lift__type_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_lift__type_0) ).

cnf(cls_uT_0,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_uT_0) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
    | ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_App_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
    | ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    v_T____ = hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
    cls_T_0 ).

cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
    cls_typing_OVar_0 ).

cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
    hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
    cls_shift__eq_0 ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,v_T_H_H____)
    | ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,v_T____)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_lift__type_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_T____),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
    | c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
    c_0_16 ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
    cls_uT_0 ).

cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : LCL794-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36  % Computer : n010.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 01:04:54 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.14/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41  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
% 5.37/1.23  % Version: 3.5.1
% 5.37/1.23  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 5.37/1.23  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 3920811 completed with status 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 5.37/1.23  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 5.37/1.23  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 5.37/1.23  % No SInE strategy applied
% 5.37/1.23  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 5.37/1.23  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with pid 3920821 completed with status 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N
% 5.37/1.23  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 5.37/1.23  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 5.37/1.23  % No SInE strategy applied
% 5.37/1.23  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 5.37/1.23  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 5.37/1.23  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 5.37/1.23  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 5.37/1.23  
% 5.37/1.23  % Proof found!
% 5.37/1.23  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 5.37/1.23  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 5.37/1.23  % Parsed axioms                        : 435
% 5.37/1.23  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Initial clauses                      : 435
% 5.37/1.23  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 5.37/1.23  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 434
% 5.37/1.23  % Processed clauses                    : 5831
% 5.37/1.23  % ...of these trivial                  : 145
% 5.37/1.23  % ...subsumed                          : 4282
% 5.37/1.23  % ...remaining for further processing  : 1404
% 5.37/1.23  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 84
% 5.37/1.23  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Backward-subsumed                    : 12
% 5.37/1.23  % Backward-rewritten                   : 20
% 5.37/1.23  % Generated clauses                    : 32392
% 5.37/1.23  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 29671
% 5.37/1.23  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Paramodulations                      : 32268
% 5.37/1.23  % Factorizations                       : 6
% 5.37/1.23  % NegExts                              : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Equation resolutions                 : 118
% 5.37/1.23  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Total rewrite steps                  : 17820
% 5.37/1.23  % ...of those cached                   : 16033
% 5.37/1.23  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 5.37/1.23  % Current number of processed clauses  : 1049
% 5.37/1.23  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 160
% 5.37/1.23  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 12
% 5.37/1.23  %    Negative unit clauses             : 274
% 5.37/1.23  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 603
% 5.37/1.23  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 24584
% 5.37/1.23  % ...number of literals in the above   : 52987
% 5.37/1.23  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Current number of archived clauses   : 356
% 5.37/1.23  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 98687
% 5.37/1.23  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 76644
% 5.37/1.23  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1562
% 5.37/1.23  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22714
% 5.37/1.23  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 74
% 5.37/1.23  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 474
% 5.37/1.23  % BW rewrite match successes           : 166
% 5.37/1.23  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 5.37/1.23  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 491654
% 5.37/1.23  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 721
% 5.37/1.23  
% 5.37/1.23  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.37/1.23  % User time                : 0.648 s
% 5.37/1.23  % System time              : 0.030 s
% 5.37/1.23  % Total time               : 0.678 s
% 5.37/1.23  % Maximum resident set size: 4208 pages
% 5.37/1.23  
% 5.37/1.23  % -------------------------------------------------
% 5.37/1.23  % User time                : 3.608 s
% 5.37/1.23  % System time              : 0.159 s
% 5.37/1.23  % Total time               : 3.767 s
% 5.37/1.23  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 5.37/1.23  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------