↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM548+3 : 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 01:49:31 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.21s 0.62s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   15 (  10 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   34 (   3 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   30 (  11   ~;   7   |;   9   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    6 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    5 (   0 sgn   4   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
    isFinite0(xQ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).

fof(mCardNum,axiom,
    ! [X1] :
      ( aSet0(X1)
     => ( aElementOf0(sbrdtbr0(X1),szNzAzT0)
      <=> isFinite0(X1) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mCardNum) ).

fof(m__2270,hypothesis,
    ( aElementOf0(xQ,slbdtsldtrb0(xS,xk))
    & sbrdtbr0(xQ) = xk
    & aSubsetOf0(xQ,xS)
    & ! [X1] :
        ( aElementOf0(X1,xQ)
       => aElementOf0(X1,xS) )
    & aSet0(xQ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__2270) ).

fof(m__2202,hypothesis,
    aElementOf0(xk,szNzAzT0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__2202) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ isFinite0(xQ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ isFinite0(xQ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ isFinite0(xQ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

fof(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X81] :
      ( ( ~ aSet0(X81)
        | aElementOf0(sbrdtbr0(X81),szNzAzT0)
        | ~ isFinite0(X81) )
      & ( ~ aSet0(X81)
        | isFinite0(X81)
        | ~ aElementOf0(sbrdtbr0(X81),szNzAzT0) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mCardNum])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_8,hypothesis,
    ! [X145] :
      ( aElementOf0(xQ,slbdtsldtrb0(xS,xk))
      & sbrdtbr0(xQ) = xk
      & aSubsetOf0(xQ,xS)
      & ( aElementOf0(X145,xS)
        | ~ aElementOf0(X145,xQ) )
      & aSet0(xQ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[m__2270])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ isFinite0(xQ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ aSet0(X1)
    | ~ aElementOf0(sbrdtbr0(X1),szNzAzT0)
    | isFinite0(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    sbrdtbr0(xQ) = xk,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
    aElementOf0(xk,szNzAzT0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__2202]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    aSet0(xQ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM548+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.45  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.45  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.45  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.45  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.45  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.45  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.17/0.45  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:39:12 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.46  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.17/0.46  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.52  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.53  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
% 0.21/0.62  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 665532 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.21/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.62  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.62  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.62  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % SubtermCWHack with pid 665536 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.62  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.62  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.62  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.62  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.62  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.62  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.62  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.62  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.62  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.62  % Parsed axioms                        : 66
% 0.21/0.62  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Initial clauses                      : 148
% 0.21/0.62  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 6
% 0.21/0.62  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 142
% 0.21/0.62  % Processed clauses                    : 63
% 0.21/0.62  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % ...subsumed                          : 2
% 0.21/0.62  % ...remaining for further processing  : 61
% 0.21/0.62  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 5
% 0.21/0.62  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Generated clauses                    : 34
% 0.21/0.62  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 20
% 0.21/0.62  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Paramodulations                      : 29
% 0.21/0.62  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Equation resolutions                 : 5
% 0.21/0.62  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Total rewrite steps                  : 37
% 0.21/0.62  % ...of those cached                   : 23
% 0.21/0.62  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.21/0.62  % Current number of processed clauses  : 57
% 0.21/0.62  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 26
% 0.21/0.62  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.62  %    Negative unit clauses             : 6
% 0.21/0.62  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 25
% 0.21/0.62  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 99
% 0.21/0.62  % ...number of literals in the above   : 439
% 0.21/0.62  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 59
% 0.21/0.62  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48
% 0.21/0.62  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.21/0.62  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22
% 0.21/0.62  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/0.62  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 11936
% 0.21/0.62  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2749
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62  % User time                : 0.021 s
% 0.21/0.62  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.62  % Total time               : 0.029 s
% 0.21/0.62  % Maximum resident set size: 3712 pages
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62  % User time                : 0.045 s
% 0.21/0.62  % System time              : 0.023 s
% 0.21/0.62  % Total time               : 0.068 s
% 0.21/0.62  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/0.62  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------