%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : NUM430+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 600s
% DateTime : Mon Jul 18 09:32:21 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 1.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 29 ( 10 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 26 ( 7 ~; 3 |; 16 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 sgn 1 !; 4 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( aInteger0(X1)
& sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__) ).
fof(m__853,hypothesis,
( ? [X1] :
( aInteger0(X1)
& sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) )
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)))
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xa,xb,xq)
& ? [X1] :
( aInteger0(X1)
& sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)) )
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)))
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xb,xc,xq) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__853) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( aInteger0(X1)
& sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X2] :
( ~ aInteger0(X2)
| sdtasdt0(xq,X2) != sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
( aInteger0(esk1_0)
& sdtasdt0(xq,esk1_0) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb))
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)))
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xa,xb,xq)
& aInteger0(esk2_0)
& sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)))
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xb,xc,xq) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__853])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) != sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
| ~ aInteger0(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) != sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0)
| ~ aInteger0(X1) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aInteger0(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : NUM430+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.32 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.32 % DateTime : Tue Jul 5 22:22:07 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/1.39 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.20/1.39 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.20/1.39 # Preprocessing time : 0.011 s
% 0.20/1.39
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof found!
% 0.20/1.39 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.20/1.39 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object total steps : 10
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object clause steps : 5
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object initial clauses used : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.20/1.39 # Parsed axioms : 25
% 0.20/1.39 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Initial clauses : 43
% 0.20/1.39 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Initial clauses in saturation : 42
% 0.20/1.39 # Processed clauses : 43
% 0.20/1.39 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # ...remaining for further processing : 43
% 0.20/1.39 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Generated clauses : 127
% 0.20/1.39 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 106
% 0.20/1.39 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Paramodulations : 124
% 0.20/1.39 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.20/1.39 # Current number of processed clauses : 42
% 0.20/1.39 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 15
% 0.20/1.39 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Non-unit-clauses : 26
% 0.20/1.39 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 105
% 0.20/1.39 # ...number of literals in the above : 411
% 0.20/1.39 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 154
% 0.20/1.39 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 83
% 0.20/1.39 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.20/1.39 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.20/1.39 # Termbank termtop insertions : 4224
% 0.20/1.39
% 0.20/1.39 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/1.39 # User time : 0.012 s
% 0.20/1.39 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.20/1.39 # Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.20/1.39 # Maximum resident set size: 3060 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------