↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM019-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n018.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 01:44:15 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 5.52s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   12 (   8 unt;   0 nHn;  10 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   19 (   0 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   13 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(transitivity,hypothesis,
    ( ~ equalish(X1,X3)
    | ~ equalish(X1,X2)
    | equalish(X2,X3) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transitivity) ).

cnf(reflexivity,hypothesis,
    equalish(X1,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reflexivity) ).

cnf(prove_b_equals_a,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equalish(aa,a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_b_equals_a) ).

cnf(a_equals_aa,hypothesis,
    equalish(a,aa),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_equals_aa) ).

cnf(c_0_4,hypothesis,
    ( ~ equalish(X1,X3)
    | ~ equalish(X1,X2)
    | equalish(X2,X3) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[transitivity]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
    ( ~ equalish(X1,X3)
    | ~ equalish(X1,X2)
    | equalish(X2,X3) ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
    equalish(X1,X1),
    reflexivity ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equalish(aa,a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_b_equals_a]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
    ( ~ equalish(X2,X1)
    | equalish(X1,X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
    equalish(a,aa),
    a_equals_aa ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equalish(aa,a),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM019-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.46  % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.15/5.46  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/5.46  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/5.46  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/5.46  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/5.46  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/5.46  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/5.46  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:01:04 UTC 2026
% 0.15/5.46  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/5.46  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/5.50  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.19/5.50  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/5.52  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/5.52  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % new_bool_1 with pid 734537 completed with status 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.19/5.52  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/5.52  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/5.52  % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/5.52  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % SubtermCWHack with pid 734539 completed with status 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.19/5.52  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/5.52  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/5.52  % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/5.52  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/5.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.52  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.19/5.52  
% 0.19/5.52  % Proof found!
% 0.19/5.52  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/5.52  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/5.52  % Parsed axioms                        : 11
% 0.19/5.52  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Initial clauses                      : 11
% 0.19/5.52  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 11
% 0.19/5.52  % Processed clauses                    : 12
% 0.19/5.52  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % ...remaining for further processing  : 12
% 0.19/5.52  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Generated clauses                    : 16
% 0.19/5.52  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.19/5.52  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Paramodulations                      : 16
% 0.19/5.52  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Total rewrite steps                  : 3
% 0.19/5.52  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.19/5.52  % Current number of processed clauses  : 12
% 0.19/5.52  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.19/5.52  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/5.52  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.19/5.52  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 5
% 0.19/5.52  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5
% 0.19/5.52  % ...number of literals in the above   : 10
% 0.19/5.52  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.19/5.52  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.19/5.52  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.19/5.52  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.19/5.52  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 346
% 0.19/5.52  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 12
% 0.19/5.52  
% 0.19/5.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/5.52  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.19/5.52  % System time              : 0.000 s
% 0.19/5.52  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.19/5.52  % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.19/5.52  
% 0.19/5.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/5.52  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.19/5.52  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.19/5.52  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.19/5.52  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.19/5.52  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------