↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LCL796-1 : 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 : n020.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 0.17s 0.49s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   9 unt;   0 nHn;   4 RR)
%            Number of literals    :    9 (   2 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   4 con; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   6 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_T_H_H____),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_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(c_0_3,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_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_T_H_H____),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
    cls_typing_OVar_0 ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
    cls_shift__eq_0 ).

cnf(c_0_6,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_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_T_H_H____),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : LCL796-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37  % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:06:02 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42  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
% 0.17/0.49  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/0.49  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.49  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % new_bool_3 with pid 1660339 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.17/0.49  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.49  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/0.49  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.49  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.49  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1660345 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/0.49  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.49  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/0.49  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.49  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.49  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.49  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.49  % Preprocessing time       : 0.005 s
% 0.17/0.49  
% 0.17/0.49  % Proof found!
% 0.17/0.49  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.17/0.49  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/0.49  % Parsed axioms                        : 1016
% 0.17/0.49  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 694
% 0.17/0.49  % Initial clauses                      : 322
% 0.17/0.49  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 322
% 0.17/0.49  % Processed clauses                    : 746
% 0.17/0.49  % ...of these trivial                  : 55
% 0.17/0.49  % ...subsumed                          : 487
% 0.17/0.49  % ...remaining for further processing  : 203
% 0.17/0.49  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 6
% 0.17/0.49  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Backward-rewritten                   : 8
% 0.17/0.49  % Generated clauses                    : 1815
% 0.17/0.49  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1384
% 0.17/0.49  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Paramodulations                      : 1790
% 0.17/0.49  % Factorizations                       : 8
% 0.17/0.49  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Equation resolutions                 : 17
% 0.17/0.49  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Total rewrite steps                  : 658
% 0.17/0.49  % ...of those cached                   : 550
% 0.17/0.49  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.17/0.49  % Current number of processed clauses  : 195
% 0.17/0.49  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 55
% 0.17/0.49  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.17/0.49  %    Negative unit clauses             : 33
% 0.17/0.49  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 105
% 0.17/0.49  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 943
% 0.17/0.49  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1771
% 0.17/0.49  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Current number of archived clauses   : 8
% 0.17/0.49  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3224
% 0.17/0.49  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3070
% 0.17/0.49  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 236
% 0.17/0.49  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 225
% 0.17/0.49  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 54
% 0.17/0.49  % BW rewrite match successes           : 21
% 0.17/0.49  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.17/0.49  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 37492
% 0.17/0.49  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 3136
% 0.17/0.49  
% 0.17/0.49  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.49  % User time                : 0.035 s
% 0.17/0.49  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.17/0.49  % Total time               : 0.045 s
% 0.17/0.49  % Maximum resident set size: 4616 pages
% 0.17/0.49  
% 0.17/0.49  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.49  % User time                : 0.050 s
% 0.17/0.49  % System time              : 0.013 s
% 0.17/0.49  % Total time               : 0.062 s
% 0.17/0.49  % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.17/0.49  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------