↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM758^1 : 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 : 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 08:17:02 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.08s 0.26s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.08s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   20 (  12 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   35 (   0 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :  142 (  15   ~;  11   |;   0   &; 112   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   4  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   11 (   7 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    7 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   32 (   0   ^;  32   !;   0   ?;  32   :)

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

thf(decl_23,type,
    x: frac ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    y: frac ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    z: frac ).

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

thf(decl_27,type,
    pf: frac > frac > frac ).

thf(decl_28,type,
    eq: frac > frac > $o ).

thf(satz44,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X1 @ X2 )
     => ( ( eq @ X1 @ X3 )
       => ( ( eq @ X2 @ X4 )
         => ( moref @ X3 @ X4 ) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p',satz44) ).

thf(satz58,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac] : ( eq @ ( pf @ X1 @ X2 ) @ ( pf @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p',satz58) ).

thf(satz63d,conjecture,
    moref @ x @ y,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p',satz63d) ).

thf(m,axiom,
    moref @ ( pf @ z @ x ) @ ( pf @ z @ y ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p',m) ).

thf(satz63a,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac,X3: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ ( pf @ X1 @ X3 ) @ ( pf @ X2 @ X3 ) )
     => ( moref @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p',satz63a) ).

thf(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X17: frac,X18: frac,X19: frac,X20: frac] :
      ( ~ ( moref @ X17 @ X18 )
      | ~ ( eq @ X17 @ X19 )
      | ~ ( eq @ X18 @ X20 )
      | ( moref @ X19 @ X20 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz44])])]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X21: frac,X22: frac] : ( eq @ ( pf @ X21 @ X22 ) @ ( pf @ X22 @ X21 ) ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz58]) ).

thf(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X1: frac,X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X3 @ X4 )
      | ~ ( moref @ X1 @ X2 )
      | ~ ( eq @ X1 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( eq @ X2 @ X4 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X2: frac,X1: frac] : ( eq @ ( pf @ X1 @ X2 ) @ ( pf @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( moref @ x @ y ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz63d]) ).

thf(c_0_10,plain,
    ! [X2: frac,X4: frac,X3: frac,X1: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X1 @ ( pf @ X2 @ X3 ) )
      | ~ ( moref @ X4 @ ( pf @ X3 @ X2 ) )
      | ~ ( eq @ X4 @ X1 ) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

thf(c_0_11,plain,
    moref @ ( pf @ z @ x ) @ ( pf @ z @ y ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m]) ).

thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( moref @ x @ y ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

thf(c_0_13,plain,
    ! [X14: frac,X15: frac,X16: frac] :
      ( ~ ( moref @ ( pf @ X14 @ X16 ) @ ( pf @ X15 @ X16 ) )
      | ( moref @ X14 @ X15 ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz63a])])]) ).

thf(c_0_14,plain,
    ! [X1: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X1 @ ( pf @ y @ z ) )
      | ~ ( eq @ ( pf @ z @ x ) @ X1 ) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

thf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( moref @ x @ y ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).

thf(c_0_16,plain,
    ! [X1: frac,X3: frac,X2: frac] :
      ( ( moref @ X1 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( moref @ ( pf @ X1 @ X2 ) @ ( pf @ X3 @ X2 ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).

thf(c_0_17,plain,
    moref @ ( pf @ x @ z ) @ ( pf @ y @ z ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_8]) ).

thf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( moref @ x @ y ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).

thf(c_0_19,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : NUM758^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.18  % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 12:53:09 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.19  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.19  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.23  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.24  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.II0jXPjulX/E---3.1_3100720.p
% 0.08/0.26  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % ho_unfolding_6 with pid 3100747 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Result found by ho_unfolding_6
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.08/0.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.08/0.26  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3100753 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.08/0.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.08/0.26  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % Proof found!
% 0.08/0.26  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.08/0.26  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.08/0.26  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.08/0.26  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Initial clauses                      : 12
% 0.08/0.26  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 7
% 0.08/0.26  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 5
% 0.08/0.26  % Processed clauses                    : 8
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.08/0.26  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Generated clauses                    : 5
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.08/0.26  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Paramodulations                      : 5
% 0.08/0.26  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of processed clauses  : 8
% 0.08/0.26  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 3
% 0.08/0.26  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.08/0.26  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 4
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 598
% 0.08/0.26  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 76
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.26  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.08/0.26  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.26  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.08/0.26  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.08/0.26  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------