↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM472+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n009.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 01:55:09 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.15s 0.59s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   16 (   8 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   46 (   4 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   13 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   54 (  24   ~;  20   |;   7   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   11 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   17 (   0 sgn   9   !;   1   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
    sdtlseqdt0(xm,sdtpldt0(xm,xn)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).

fof(mDefLE,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( ( aNaturalNumber0(X2)
        & aNaturalNumber0(X1) )
     => ( sdtlseqdt0(X1,X2)
      <=> ? [X3] :
            ( sdtpldt0(X1,X3) = X2
            & aNaturalNumber0(X3) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mDefLE) ).

fof(mSortsB,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( ( aNaturalNumber0(X2)
        & aNaturalNumber0(X1) )
     => aNaturalNumber0(sdtpldt0(X1,X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mSortsB) ).

fof(m__1324,hypothesis,
    ( aNaturalNumber0(xn)
    & aNaturalNumber0(xm)
    & aNaturalNumber0(xl) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1324) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ sdtlseqdt0(xm,sdtpldt0(xm,xn)),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ sdtlseqdt0(xm,sdtpldt0(xm,xn)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X31,X32,X34] :
      ( ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X32)
        | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X31)
        | sdtlseqdt0(X31,X32)
        | sdtpldt0(X31,X34) != X32
        | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X34) )
      & ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X32)
        | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X31)
        | ~ sdtlseqdt0(X31,X32)
        | sdtpldt0(X31,esk2_2(X31,X32)) = X32 )
      & ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X32)
        | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X31)
        | ~ sdtlseqdt0(X31,X32)
        | aNaturalNumber0(esk2_2(X31,X32)) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mDefLE])])])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X15,X16] :
      ( aNaturalNumber0(sdtpldt0(X15,X16))
      | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X16)
      | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X15) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mSortsB])])]) ).

fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ sdtlseqdt0(xm,sdtpldt0(xm,xn)),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X3)
    | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X2)
    | sdtpldt0(X2,X1) != X3
    | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X1)
    | sdtlseqdt0(X2,X3) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X2)
    | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X1)
    | aNaturalNumber0(sdtpldt0(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ~ sdtlseqdt0(xm,sdtpldt0(xm,xn)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X2)
    | ~ aNaturalNumber0(X1)
    | sdtlseqdt0(X1,sdtpldt0(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]),c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    aNaturalNumber0(xm),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1324]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
    aNaturalNumber0(xn),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1324]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM472+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.52  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.52  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.52  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.52  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.52  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.52  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.52  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.52  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:33:14 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.53  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.53  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.57  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.57  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
% 0.15/0.59  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % new_bool_3 with pid 654293 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.59  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.59  % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.59  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % SubtermCWHack with pid 654296 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.59  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.59  % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.59  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.59  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.59  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.59  
% 0.15/0.59  % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.59  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.59  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.59  % Parsed axioms                        : 39
% 0.15/0.59  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 6
% 0.15/0.59  % Initial clauses                      : 55
% 0.15/0.59  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.15/0.59  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 54
% 0.15/0.59  % Processed clauses                    : 81
% 0.15/0.59  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % ...subsumed                          : 30
% 0.15/0.59  % ...remaining for further processing  : 51
% 0.15/0.59  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 3
% 0.15/0.59  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.15/0.59  % Generated clauses                    : 103
% 0.15/0.59  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 82
% 0.15/0.59  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 2
% 0.15/0.59  % Paramodulations                      : 100
% 0.15/0.59  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Equation resolutions                 : 3
% 0.15/0.59  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Total rewrite steps                  : 40
% 0.15/0.59  % ...of those cached                   : 34
% 0.15/0.59  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/0.59  % Current number of processed clauses  : 47
% 0.15/0.59  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 13
% 0.15/0.59  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.59  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.15/0.59  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 32
% 0.15/0.59  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 48
% 0.15/0.59  % ...number of literals in the above   : 251
% 0.15/0.59  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.15/0.59  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 127
% 0.15/0.59  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 105
% 0.15/0.59  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 32
% 0.15/0.59  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.15/0.59  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.15/0.59  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.15/0.59  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/0.59  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 5923
% 0.15/0.59  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 921
% 0.15/0.59  
% 0.15/0.59  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.59  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.59  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.59  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.15/0.59  % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.15/0.59  
% 0.15/0.59  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.59  % User time                : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.59  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.59  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.15/0.59  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.59  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------