↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM668^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n008.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:16:46 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.28s 0.39s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    6 (   6 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :    6 (   5 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   30 (  10   ~;   0   |;   0   &;  20   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   4 avg)
%            Number of types       :    1 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    5 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    5 (   0   ^;   5   !;   0   ?;   5   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
    nat: $tType ).

thf(decl_23,type,
    x: nat ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    y: nat ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    pl: nat > nat > nat ).

thf(satz18,conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1: nat] :
        ( ( pl @ x @ y )
       != ( pl @ x @ X1 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.8yTzvRlL7t/E---3.1_3081248.p',satz18) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ! [X1: nat] :
          ( ( pl @ x @ y )
         != ( pl @ x @ X1 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz18]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ! [X1: nat] :
          ( ( pl @ x @ y )
         != ( pl @ x @ X1 ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X3: nat] :
      ( ( pl @ x @ y )
     != ( pl @ x @ X3 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: nat] :
      ( ( pl @ x @ y )
     != ( pl @ x @ X1 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : NUM668^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.28  % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.28  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.28  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.28  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.28  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.28  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.28  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.28  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 12:34:24 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.28  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.13/0.28  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.28/0.34  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.28/0.35  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.8yTzvRlL7t/E---3.1_3081248.p
% 0.28/0.39  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.28/0.39  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.39  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % new_ho_10 with pid 3081261 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.28/0.39  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.39  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.39  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.39  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.39  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_ho_10 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_bool_1 with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_bool_2 with 146s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3081265 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/0.39  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.39  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.39  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.39  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.39  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.39  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.39  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.28/0.39  
% 0.28/0.39  % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.39  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.28/0.39  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.39  % Parsed axioms                        : 5
% 0.28/0.39  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Initial clauses                      : 5
% 0.28/0.39  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 4
% 0.28/0.39  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 1
% 0.28/0.39  % Processed clauses                    : 1
% 0.28/0.39  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % ...remaining for further processing  : 1
% 0.28/0.39  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.28/0.39  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Generated clauses                    : 1
% 0.28/0.40  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.28/0.40  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.28/0.40  % Current number of processed clauses  : 1
% 0.28/0.40  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.28/0.40  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.28/0.40  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.28/0.40  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.28/0.40  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 124
% 0.28/0.40  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 14
% 0.28/0.40  
% 0.28/0.40  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.40  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.28/0.40  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.40  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.28/0.40  % Maximum resident set size: 3368 pages
% 0.28/0.40  
% 0.28/0.40  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.40  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.28/0.40  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.28/0.40  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.28/0.40  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.28/0.40  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------