↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : NUM837+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n002.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 01:56:41 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.21s 10.52s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   10 (   7 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (   8 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   11 (   6   ~;   3   |;   1   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   1 sgn   8   !;   3   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof('qe(171)',conjecture,
    ? [X1] : vd269 = vplus(vd268,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','qe(171)') ).

fof('def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)',axiom,
    ! [X16,X17] :
      ( less(X17,X16)
    <=> ? [X18] : X16 = vplus(X17,X18) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)') ).

fof('holds(conjunct1(170), 270, 0)',axiom,
    less(vd268,vd269),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','holds(conjunct1(170), 270, 0)') ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1] : vd269 = vplus(vd268,X1),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['qe(171)']) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X55,X56,X58,X59,X60] :
      ( ( less(X59,X58)
        | X58 != vplus(X59,X60) )
      & ( X55 = vplus(X56,esk1_2(X55,X56))
        | ~ less(X56,X55) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],['def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)'])])])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X34] : vd269 != vplus(vd268,X34),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ less(X1,X2)
    | X2 = vplus(X1,esk1_2(X2,X1)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    less(vd268,vd269),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],['holds(conjunct1(170), 270, 0)']) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    vd269 != vplus(vd268,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : NUM837+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/10.46  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.18/10.46  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/10.46  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/10.46  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/10.46  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/10.46  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/10.46  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/10.46  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 03:15:15 UTC 2026
% 0.18/10.46  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/10.46  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/10.50  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/10.50  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
% 0.21/10.52  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/10.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/10.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2303229 completed with status 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.21/10.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/10.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/10.52  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/10.52  % Search class: FGHSS-FFMF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/10.52  % partial match(1): FGHSS-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/10.52  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 253s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 248s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 241s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % new_bool_1 with pid 2303237 completed with status 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.21/10.52  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/10.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/10.52  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/10.52  % Search class: FGHSS-FFMF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/10.52  % partial match(1): FGHSS-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/10.52  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 253s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 248s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 241s (1) cores
% 0.21/10.52  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.21/10.52  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/10.52  
% 0.21/10.52  % Proof found!
% 0.21/10.52  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/10.52  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/10.52  % Parsed axioms                        : 22
% 0.21/10.52  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Initial clauses                      : 29
% 0.21/10.52  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.21/10.52  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 28
% 0.21/10.52  % Processed clauses                    : 72
% 0.21/10.52  % ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 0.21/10.52  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.21/10.52  % ...remaining for further processing  : 68
% 0.21/10.52  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 9
% 0.21/10.52  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.21/10.52  % Generated clauses                    : 50
% 0.21/10.52  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 36
% 0.21/10.52  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Paramodulations                      : 40
% 0.21/10.52  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Equation resolutions                 : 10
% 0.21/10.52  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Total rewrite steps                  : 23
% 0.21/10.52  % ...of those cached                   : 6
% 0.21/10.52  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.21/10.52  % Current number of processed clauses  : 32
% 0.21/10.52  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 12
% 0.21/10.52  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/10.52  %    Negative unit clauses             : 9
% 0.21/10.52  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 11
% 0.21/10.52  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.21/10.52  % ...number of literals in the above   : 25
% 0.21/10.52  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Current number of archived clauses   : 28
% 0.21/10.52  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6
% 0.21/10.52  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.21/10.52  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.21/10.52  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.21/10.52  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.21/10.52  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/10.52  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 2025
% 0.21/10.52  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 341
% 0.21/10.52  
% 0.21/10.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/10.52  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.21/10.52  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.21/10.52  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.21/10.52  % Maximum resident set size: 3608 pages
% 0.21/10.52  
% 0.21/10.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/10.52  % User time                : 0.015 s
% 0.21/10.52  % System time              : 0.012 s
% 0.21/10.52  % Total time               : 0.028 s
% 0.21/10.52  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/10.52  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------