↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LCL848-1 : 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 : 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 01:16:36 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.18s 0.53s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.18s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   6 unt;   0 nHn;   6 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   12 (   0 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   12 (  12 usr;   6 con; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_OCons(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Olift,v_ta____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_IT_OVar_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2,tc_Lambda_OdB)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_IT_OVar_0) ).

cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
    c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Olist_OCons(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Olift,v_ta____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_OCons(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Olift,v_ta____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2,tc_Lambda_OdB)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_IT_OVar_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_OCons(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Olift,v_ta____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,X2,tc_Lambda_OdB)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))) ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Olist_OCons(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Olift,v_ta____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),
    cls_CHAINED_0 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : LCL848-1 : 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 : n003.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 01:09:46 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  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
% 0.18/0.53  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.18/0.53  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.53  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 3067351 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.18/0.53  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.53  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.18/0.53  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.18/0.53  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.53  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 3067358 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.18/0.53  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.53  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.18/0.53  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.18/0.53  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.53  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.53  % Preprocessing time       : 0.006 s
% 0.18/0.53  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.18/0.53  
% 0.18/0.53  % Proof found!
% 0.18/0.53  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.18/0.53  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.18/0.53  % Parsed axioms                        : 723
% 0.18/0.53  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Initial clauses                      : 723
% 0.18/0.53  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 723
% 0.18/0.53  % Processed clauses                    : 1200
% 0.18/0.53  % ...of these trivial                  : 53
% 0.18/0.53  % ...subsumed                          : 198
% 0.18/0.53  % ...remaining for further processing  : 949
% 0.18/0.53  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 8
% 0.18/0.53  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 0.18/0.53  % Backward-rewritten                   : 8
% 0.18/0.53  % Generated clauses                    : 877
% 0.18/0.53  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 655
% 0.18/0.53  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Paramodulations                      : 853
% 0.18/0.53  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.18/0.53  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Equation resolutions                 : 22
% 0.18/0.53  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Total rewrite steps                  : 506
% 0.18/0.53  % ...of those cached                   : 388
% 0.18/0.53  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.18/0.53  % Current number of processed clauses  : 352
% 0.18/0.53  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 137
% 0.18/0.53  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.18/0.53  %    Negative unit clauses             : 31
% 0.18/0.53  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 183
% 0.18/0.53  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 765
% 0.18/0.53  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1821
% 0.18/0.53  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Current number of archived clauses   : 597
% 0.18/0.53  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 23911
% 0.18/0.53  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17810
% 0.18/0.53  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 81
% 0.18/0.53  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 626
% 0.18/0.53  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 7
% 0.18/0.53  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 123
% 0.18/0.53  % BW rewrite match successes           : 10
% 0.18/0.53  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.18/0.53  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 36704
% 0.18/0.53  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1215
% 0.18/0.53  
% 0.18/0.53  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.53  % User time                : 0.061 s
% 0.18/0.53  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.18/0.53  % Total time               : 0.069 s
% 0.18/0.53  % Maximum resident set size: 4924 pages
% 0.18/0.53  
% 0.18/0.53  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.53  % User time                : 0.300 s
% 0.18/0.53  % System time              : 0.035 s
% 0.18/0.53  % Total time               : 0.335 s
% 0.18/0.53  % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.18/0.53  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------