↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM632+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 01:49:51 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 1.91s 0.80s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 1.91s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (  10 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (  11 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    9 (   5   ~;   0   |;   4   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   11 (  11 usr;   7 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

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

fof(m__5309,hypothesis,
    ( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,xn) = xp
    & aElementOf0(xn,szNzAzT0)
    & aElementOf0(xn,sdtlbdtrb0(xd,szDzizrdt0(xd)))
    & sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn) = szDzizrdt0(xd)
    & aElementOf0(xn,szDzozmdt0(xd)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__5309) ).

fof(m__5568,hypothesis,
    sdtlpdtrp0(xc,xQ) = sdtlpdtrp0(xd,xn),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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__5309]) ).

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+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.38  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.38  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:46:13 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.38  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41  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
% 1.91/0.80  % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.91/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.91/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % new_bool_3 with pid 677834 completed with status 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 1.91/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.91/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.91/0.80  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.91/0.80  % Search class: FGHSF-SMLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 1.91/0.80  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % SubtermCWHack with pid 677837 completed with status 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 1.91/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.91/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 1.91/0.80  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.91/0.80  % Search class: FGHSF-SMLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 1.91/0.80  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.91/0.80  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 1.91/0.80  % Preprocessing time       : 0.062 s
% 1.91/0.80  
% 1.91/0.80  % Proof found!
% 1.91/0.80  % SZS status Theorem
% 1.91/0.80  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.91/0.80  % Parsed axioms                        : 115
% 1.91/0.80  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 9
% 1.91/0.80  % Initial clauses                      : 4894
% 1.91/0.80  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 7
% 1.91/0.80  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 4887
% 1.91/0.80  % Processed clauses                    : 110
% 1.91/0.80  % ...of these trivial                  : 6
% 1.91/0.80  % ...subsumed                          : 6
% 1.91/0.80  % ...remaining for further processing  : 97
% 1.91/0.80  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 4
% 1.91/0.80  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 1.91/0.80  % Generated clauses                    : 25
% 1.91/0.80  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 19
% 1.91/0.80  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Paramodulations                      : 21
% 1.91/0.80  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % NegExts                              : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Equation resolutions                 : 4
% 1.91/0.80  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Total rewrite steps                  : 34
% 1.91/0.80  % ...of those cached                   : 16
% 1.91/0.80  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 1.91/0.80  % Current number of processed clauses  : 92
% 1.91/0.80  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 61
% 1.91/0.80  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.91/0.80  %    Negative unit clauses             : 6
% 1.91/0.80  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 25
% 1.91/0.80  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4796
% 1.91/0.80  % ...number of literals in the above   : 55796
% 1.91/0.80  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 1.91/0.80  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 83
% 1.91/0.80  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 80
% 1.91/0.80  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 3
% 1.91/0.80  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 63
% 1.91/0.80  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 1.91/0.80  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 1.91/0.80  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 1.91/0.80  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 381435
% 1.91/0.80  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 31520
% 1.91/0.80  
% 1.91/0.80  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.91/0.80  % User time                : 0.330 s
% 1.91/0.80  % System time              : 0.025 s
% 1.91/0.80  % Total time               : 0.355 s
% 1.91/0.80  % Maximum resident set size: 16112 pages
% 1.91/0.80  
% 1.91/0.80  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.91/0.80  % User time                : 0.337 s
% 1.91/0.80  % System time              : 0.030 s
% 1.91/0.80  % Total time               : 0.367 s
% 1.91/0.80  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 1.91/0.80  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------