↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LCL838-1 : 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 01:16:34 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 1.56s 0.73s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 1.56s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   13 (   7 unt;   0 nHn;  13 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   19 (   0 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   2 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   17 (  17 usr;  11 con; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   4 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_that_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),X1)
    | v_thesis____ ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_that_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_list__app__typeE_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2,X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xlist__app__typeE__1__1(X3,X1,X2,X4),X3,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_list__app__typeE_0) ).

cnf(cls_T_0,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_T_H____),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_T_0) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),X1)
    | v_thesis____ ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_that_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2,X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xlist__app__typeE__1__1(X3,X1,X2,X4),X3,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_list__app__typeE_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),X1)
    | v_thesis____ ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    c_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2,X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3)
    | c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xlist__app__typeE__1__1(X3,X1,X2,X4),X3,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_T_H____),
    cls_T_0 ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),X1),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : LCL838-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.43  % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.43  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.43  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.43  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.43  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.17/0.43  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:48 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.43  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.17/0.43  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.50  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.50  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
% 1.56/0.73  % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.56/0.73  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.56/0.73  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1665728 completed with status 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 1.56/0.73  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.56/0.73  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.56/0.73  % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.56/0.73  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 1.56/0.73  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1665737 completed with status 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 1.56/0.73  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.56/0.73  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.56/0.73  % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.56/0.73  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 1.56/0.73  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 1.56/0.73  % Preprocessing time       : 0.011 s
% 1.56/0.73  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 1.56/0.73  
% 1.56/0.73  % Proof found!
% 1.56/0.73  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 1.56/0.73  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.56/0.73  % Parsed axioms                        : 442
% 1.56/0.73  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Initial clauses                      : 442
% 1.56/0.73  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 1.56/0.73  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 440
% 1.56/0.73  % Processed clauses                    : 731
% 1.56/0.73  % ...of these trivial                  : 36
% 1.56/0.73  % ...subsumed                          : 63
% 1.56/0.73  % ...remaining for further processing  : 632
% 1.56/0.73  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 90
% 1.56/0.73  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 1.56/0.73  % Generated clauses                    : 3170
% 1.56/0.73  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2575
% 1.56/0.73  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Paramodulations                      : 3051
% 1.56/0.73  % Factorizations                       : 6
% 1.56/0.73  % NegExts                              : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Equation resolutions                 : 113
% 1.56/0.73  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1440
% 1.56/0.73  % ...of those cached                   : 1260
% 1.56/0.73  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 1.56/0.73  % Current number of processed clauses  : 289
% 1.56/0.73  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 82
% 1.56/0.73  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 1.56/0.73  %    Negative unit clauses             : 18
% 1.56/0.73  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 187
% 1.56/0.73  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2623
% 1.56/0.73  % ...number of literals in the above   : 6511
% 1.56/0.73  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Current number of archived clauses   : 345
% 1.56/0.73  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 7137
% 1.56/0.73  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5981
% 1.56/0.73  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 43
% 1.56/0.73  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 300
% 1.56/0.73  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 150
% 1.56/0.73  % BW rewrite match successes           : 48
% 1.56/0.73  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 1.56/0.73  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 64641
% 1.56/0.73  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 751
% 1.56/0.73  
% 1.56/0.73  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.56/0.73  % User time                : 0.161 s
% 1.56/0.73  % System time              : 0.016 s
% 1.56/0.73  % Total time               : 0.177 s
% 1.56/0.73  % Maximum resident set size: 4488 pages
% 1.56/0.73  
% 1.56/0.73  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.56/0.73  % User time                : 0.791 s
% 1.56/0.73  % System time              : 0.068 s
% 1.56/0.73  % Total time               : 0.858 s
% 1.56/0.73  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 1.56/0.73  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------