↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM771^1 : 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 : n012.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 08:17:05 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.09s 0.14s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   12 (  12 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   12 (   3 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :  132 (   4   ~;   0   |;   0   &; 128   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   6 avg)
%            Number of types       :    3 (   2 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    9 (   7 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    9 (   0   ^;   9   !;   0   ?;   9   :)

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

thf(decl_sort2,type,
    nat: $tType ).

thf(decl_23,type,
    x: frac ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    y: frac ).

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

thf(decl_26,type,
    fr: nat > nat > frac ).

thf(decl_27,type,
    ts: nat > nat > nat ).

thf(decl_28,type,
    num: frac > nat ).

thf(decl_29,type,
    den: frac > nat ).

thf(satz69,conjecture,
    eq @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ x ) @ ( num @ y ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ x ) @ ( den @ y ) ) ) @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ y ) @ ( num @ x ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ y ) @ ( den @ x ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.rUha5ahi4Z/E---3.1_64875.p',satz69) ).

thf(satz29,axiom,
    ! [X2: nat,X3: nat] :
      ( ( ts @ X2 @ X3 )
      = ( ts @ X3 @ X2 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.rUha5ahi4Z/E---3.1_64875.p',satz29) ).

thf(satz37,axiom,
    ! [X1: frac] : ( eq @ X1 @ X1 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.rUha5ahi4Z/E---3.1_64875.p',satz37) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( eq @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ x ) @ ( num @ y ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ x ) @ ( den @ y ) ) ) @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ y ) @ ( num @ x ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ y ) @ ( den @ x ) ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz69]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( eq @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ x ) @ ( num @ y ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ x ) @ ( den @ y ) ) ) @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ y ) @ ( num @ x ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ y ) @ ( den @ x ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( eq @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ x ) @ ( num @ y ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ x ) @ ( den @ y ) ) ) @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ y ) @ ( num @ x ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ y ) @ ( den @ x ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X8: nat,X9: nat] :
      ( ( ts @ X8 @ X9 )
      = ( ts @ X9 @ X8 ) ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz29]) ).

thf(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X7: frac] : ( eq @ X7 @ X7 ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz37]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( eq @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ x ) @ ( num @ y ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ x ) @ ( den @ y ) ) ) @ ( fr @ ( ts @ ( num @ y ) @ ( num @ x ) ) @ ( ts @ ( den @ y ) @ ( den @ x ) ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X3: nat,X2: nat] :
      ( ( ts @ X2 @ X3 )
      = ( ts @ X3 @ X2 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_10,plain,
    ! [X1: frac] : ( eq @ X1 @ X1 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01  % Problem  : NUM771^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.02  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.00/0.10  % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.00/0.10  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.00/0.10  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.00/0.10  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.00/0.10  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.00/0.10  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.00/0.10  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.00/0.10  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 12:54:33 UTC 2026
% 0.00/0.10  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.00/0.10  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.12  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.13  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.rUha5ahi4Z/E---3.1_64875.p
% 0.09/0.14  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.09/0.14  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.14  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % ho_unfolding_6 with pid 64889 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Result found by ho_unfolding_6
% 0.09/0.14  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.14  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.14  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.14  % Search class: HUUSS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.14  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % SubtermCWHack with pid 64893 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.14  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.14  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.14  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.14  % Search class: HUUSS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.14  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.14  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.14  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.14  
% 0.09/0.14  % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.14  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.14  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.14  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.09/0.14  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Initial clauses                      : 12
% 0.09/0.14  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 9
% 0.09/0.14  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3
% 0.09/0.14  % Processed clauses                    : 3
% 0.09/0.14  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % ...remaining for further processing  : 2
% 0.09/0.14  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Total rewrite steps                  : 3
% 0.09/0.14  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.09/0.14  % Current number of processed clauses  : 2
% 0.09/0.14  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.09/0.14  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.09/0.14  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.09/0.14  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.14  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.09/0.14  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 346
% 0.09/0.14  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 13
% 0.09/0.14  
% 0.09/0.14  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.14  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.14  % System time              : 0.000 s
% 0.09/0.14  % Total time               : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.14  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.09/0.14  
% 0.09/0.14  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.14  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.14  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.14  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.14  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.14  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------