↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM291+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n005.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 01:44:37 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.19s 5.72s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   20 (  12 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   42 (   4 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   44 (  22   ~;  13   |;   6   &)
%                                         (   2 <=>;   1  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   22 (   0 sgn  14   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(less_property,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( less(X1,X2)
    <=> ( X2 != X1
        & ~ less(X2,X1) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_property) ).

fof(n3_not_less_n2,conjecture,
    ~ less(n3,n2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n3_not_less_n2) ).

fof(less_entry_point_pos_pos,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X10,X11] :
      ( ( rdn_positive_less(X10,X11)
        & rdn_translate(X2,rdn_pos(X11))
        & rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X10)) )
     => less(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_entry_point_pos_pos) ).

fof(rdn3,axiom,
    rdn_translate(n3,rdn_pos(rdnn(n3))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn3) ).

fof(rdn2,axiom,
    rdn_translate(n2,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn2) ).

fof(rdn_positive_less23,axiom,
    rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',rdn_positive_less23) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( less(X1,X2)
    <=> ( X2 != X1
        & ~ less(X2,X1) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[less_property]) ).

fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ less(n3,n2),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[n3_not_less_n2]) ).

fof(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X33,X34,X35,X36] :
      ( less(X33,X34)
      | ~ rdn_positive_less(X35,X36)
      | ~ rdn_translate(X34,rdn_pos(X36))
      | ~ rdn_translate(X33,rdn_pos(X35)) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[less_entry_point_pos_pos])])]) ).

fof(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X45,X46] :
      ( ( less(X45,X46)
        | X46 = X45
        | less(X46,X45) )
      & ( ~ less(X45,X46)
        | X46 != X45 )
      & ( ~ less(X45,X46)
        | ~ less(X46,X45) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    less(n3,n2),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ rdn_positive_less(X2,X4)
    | ~ rdn_translate(X3,rdn_pos(X4))
    | ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
    | less(X1,X3) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    rdn_translate(n3,rdn_pos(rdnn(n3))),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn3]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ less(X2,X1)
    | ~ less(X1,X2) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    less(n3,n2),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    ( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
    | ~ rdn_positive_less(X2,rdnn(n3))
    | less(X1,n3) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    rdn_translate(n2,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2))),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn2]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn_positive_less23]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    ~ less(n2,n3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),c_0_18]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM291+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.63  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.15/5.63  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/5.63  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/5.63  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/5.63  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/5.63  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/5.63  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/5.63  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:20:40 UTC 2026
% 0.15/5.64  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/5.64  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.68  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.68  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
% 0.19/5.72  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/5.72  % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.72  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % new_bool_3 with pid 2337879 completed with status 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/5.72  % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.72  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/5.72  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/5.72  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/5.72  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2337882 completed with status 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.19/5.72  % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/5.72  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/5.72  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/5.72  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/5.72  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/5.72  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.19/5.72  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.19/5.72  
% 0.19/5.72  % Proof found!
% 0.19/5.72  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/5.72  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/5.72  % Parsed axioms                        : 402
% 0.19/5.72  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 276
% 0.19/5.72  % Initial clauses                      : 128
% 0.19/5.72  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 128
% 0.19/5.72  % Processed clauses                    : 209
% 0.19/5.72  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.19/5.72  % ...remaining for further processing  : 206
% 0.19/5.72  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 1
% 0.19/5.72  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Generated clauses                    : 173
% 0.19/5.72  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 154
% 0.19/5.72  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Paramodulations                      : 170
% 0.19/5.72  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.19/5.72  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.19/5.72  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Total rewrite steps                  : 19
% 0.19/5.72  % ...of those cached                   : 6
% 0.19/5.72  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.19/5.72  % Current number of processed clauses  : 205
% 0.19/5.72  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 126
% 0.19/5.72  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/5.72  %    Negative unit clauses             : 20
% 0.19/5.72  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 59
% 0.19/5.72  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 66
% 0.19/5.72  % ...number of literals in the above   : 159
% 0.19/5.72  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 227
% 0.19/5.72  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 220
% 0.19/5.72  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 500
% 0.19/5.72  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.19/5.72  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 10231
% 0.19/5.72  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1548
% 0.19/5.72  
% 0.19/5.72  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/5.72  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.19/5.72  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.19/5.72  % Total time               : 0.015 s
% 0.19/5.72  % Maximum resident set size: 4508 pages
% 0.19/5.72  
% 0.19/5.72  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/5.72  % User time                : 0.022 s
% 0.19/5.72  % System time              : 0.014 s
% 0.19/5.72  % Total time               : 0.036 s
% 0.19/5.72  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.19/5.72  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------