↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM740^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n018.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 08:16:58 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.10s 0.24s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   19 (   5 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   33 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   94 (  16   ~;   6   |;   1   &;  64   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   7  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    6 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (   0   ^;  12   !;   0   ?;  12   :)

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

thf(decl_23,type,
    x: frac ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    y: frac ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    moref: frac > frac > $o ).

thf(decl_26,type,
    eq: frac > frac > $o ).

thf(decl_27,type,
    lessf: frac > frac > $o ).

thf(satz48,conjecture,
    ( ~ ( lessf @ y @ x )
   => ( eq @ y @ x ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.oTH7L6QGs0/E---3.1_22662.p',satz48) ).

thf(m,axiom,
    ( ~ ( moref @ x @ y )
   => ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.oTH7L6QGs0/E---3.1_22662.p',m) ).

thf(satz42,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X1 @ X2 )
     => ( lessf @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.oTH7L6QGs0/E---3.1_22662.p',satz42) ).

thf(satz38,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac] :
      ( ( eq @ X1 @ X2 )
     => ( eq @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.oTH7L6QGs0/E---3.1_22662.p',satz38) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ~ ( lessf @ y @ x )
     => ( eq @ y @ x ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz48]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ~ ( lessf @ y @ x )
     => ( eq @ y @ x ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ ( moref @ x @ y )
   => ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[m]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ ( lessf @ y @ x )
    & ~ ( eq @ y @ x ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).

thf(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X9: frac,X10: frac] :
      ( ~ ( moref @ X9 @ X10 )
      | ( lessf @ X10 @ X9 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz42])])]) ).

thf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ( moref @ x @ y )
    | ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( lessf @ y @ x ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_11,plain,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac] :
      ( ( lessf @ X2 @ X1 )
      | ~ ( moref @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

thf(c_0_12,plain,
    ! [X7: frac,X8: frac] :
      ( ~ ( eq @ X7 @ X8 )
      | ( eq @ X8 @ X7 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz38])])]) ).

thf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ( moref @ x @ y )
    | ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( moref @ x @ y ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

thf(c_0_15,plain,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac] :
      ( ( eq @ X2 @ X1 )
      | ~ ( eq @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).

thf(c_0_16,plain,
    eq @ x @ y,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

thf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( eq @ y @ x ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_18,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : NUM740^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.16  % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.16  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.16  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.16  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.16  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 12:49:56 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.21  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.23  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.oTH7L6QGs0/E---3.1_22662.p
% 0.10/0.24  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.10/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with pid 22678 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Result found by ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall
% 0.10/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.24  % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.24  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % SubtermCWHack with pid 22679 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.24  % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.24  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.24  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.24  
% 0.10/0.24  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.24  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.24  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.24  % Parsed axioms                        : 10
% 0.10/0.24  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Initial clauses                      : 11
% 0.10/0.24  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 6
% 0.10/0.24  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 5
% 0.10/0.24  % Processed clauses                    : 7
% 0.10/0.24  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % ...remaining for further processing  : 7
% 0.10/0.24  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Generated clauses                    : 3
% 0.10/0.24  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.10/0.24  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.10/0.24  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.24  % Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.10/0.24  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.10/0.24  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.24  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.10/0.24  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.10/0.24  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.24  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.10/0.24  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.24  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 397
% 0.10/0.24  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 47
% 0.10/0.24  
% 0.10/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.24  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.24  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.24  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.10/0.24  
% 0.10/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.24  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.24  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.10/0.24  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.10/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.24  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------