↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM632+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n017.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 01:49:51 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.14s 0.45s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (  11 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   11 (  10 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    5 (   5   ~;   0   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) = szDzizrdt0(xd),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).

fof(m__5321,hypothesis,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn) = szDzizrdt0(xd),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__5321) ).

fof(m__5568,hypothesis,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) = sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__5568) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) != szDzizrdt0(xd),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) != szDzizrdt0(xd),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) != szDzizrdt0(xd),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) != szDzizrdt0(xd),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn) = szDzizrdt0(xd),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__5321]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) = sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__5568]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) != sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM632+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36  % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:40:42 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41  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
% 0.14/0.45  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % new_bool_1 with pid 1248849 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.45  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.45  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1248854 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.45  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.45  % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.45  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.45  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.45  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.45  
% 0.14/0.45  % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.45  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.45  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.45  % Parsed axioms                        : 115
% 0.14/0.45  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 2
% 0.14/0.45  % Initial clauses                      : 212
% 0.14/0.45  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 7
% 0.14/0.45  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 205
% 0.14/0.45  % Processed clauses                    : 80
% 0.14/0.45  % ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 0.14/0.45  % ...subsumed                          : 2
% 0.14/0.45  % ...remaining for further processing  : 76
% 0.14/0.45  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 4
% 0.14/0.45  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.14/0.45  % Generated clauses                    : 22
% 0.14/0.45  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 16
% 0.14/0.45  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Paramodulations                      : 18
% 0.14/0.45  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Equation resolutions                 : 4
% 0.14/0.45  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Total rewrite steps                  : 25
% 0.14/0.45  % ...of those cached                   : 10
% 0.14/0.45  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.14/0.45  % Current number of processed clauses  : 71
% 0.14/0.45  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 53
% 0.14/0.45  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.45  %    Negative unit clauses             : 6
% 0.14/0.45  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 12
% 0.14/0.45  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 141
% 0.14/0.45  % ...number of literals in the above   : 622
% 0.14/0.45  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.14/0.45  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.14/0.45  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.14/0.45  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13
% 0.14/0.45  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.14/0.45  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.14/0.45  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.14/0.45  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 15942
% 0.14/0.45  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 3549
% 0.14/0.45  
% 0.14/0.45  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.45  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.45  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.14/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 4284 pages
% 0.14/0.45  
% 0.14/0.45  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.45  % User time                : 0.014 s
% 0.14/0.45  % System time              : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.45  % Total time               : 0.025 s
% 0.14/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.45  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------