%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : NUN054+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 600s
% DateTime : Mon Jul 18 16:24:51 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 7.85s 2.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 7.85s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 11
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 37 ( 23 unt; 0 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 71 ( 15 equ; 41 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 7 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 74 ( 7 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_17,plain,
( X1 = esk10_1(X2)
| ~ r2(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_17) ).
cnf(i_0_5,plain,
r2(X1,esk3_2(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_5) ).
cnf(i_0_40,negated_conjecture,
( X1 != X2
| ~ r1(X3)
| ~ r1(X4)
| ~ r1(X5)
| ~ r2(X3,X2)
| ~ r2(X4,X6)
| ~ r3(X5,X6,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_40) ).
cnf(i_0_4,plain,
r3(X1,esk3_2(X1,X2),esk1_2(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_4) ).
cnf(i_0_8,plain,
( X1 = esk5_0
| ~ r1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_8) ).
cnf(i_0_26,plain,
r1(esk13_1(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_26) ).
cnf(i_0_25,plain,
r3(X1,esk13_1(X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_25) ).
cnf(i_0_2,plain,
r2(esk4_2(X1,X2),esk1_2(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_2) ).
cnf(i_0_16,plain,
( r2(X1,X2)
| X2 != esk10_1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_16) ).
cnf(i_0_22,plain,
( X1 = esk11_2(X2,X3)
| ~ r3(X2,X3,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_22) ).
cnf(i_0_1,plain,
r3(X1,X2,esk4_2(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-dm8xaihs/input.p',i_0_1) ).
cnf(c_0_52,plain,
( X1 = esk10_1(X2)
| ~ r2(X2,X1) ),
i_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_53,plain,
r2(X1,esk3_2(X2,X1)),
i_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_54,negated_conjecture,
( X1 != X2
| ~ r1(X3)
| ~ r1(X4)
| ~ r1(X5)
| ~ r2(X3,X2)
| ~ r2(X4,X6)
| ~ r3(X5,X6,X1) ),
i_0_40 ).
cnf(c_0_55,plain,
r3(X1,esk3_2(X1,X2),esk1_2(X1,X2)),
i_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_56,plain,
esk3_2(X1,X2) = esk10_1(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_52,c_0_53]) ).
cnf(c_0_57,plain,
( X1 = esk5_0
| ~ r1(X1) ),
i_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_58,plain,
r1(esk13_1(X1)),
i_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_59,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r3(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ r2(X4,X2)
| ~ r2(X5,X3)
| ~ r1(X1)
| ~ r1(X4)
| ~ r1(X5) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_54]) ).
cnf(c_0_60,plain,
r3(X1,esk10_1(X2),esk1_2(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_55,c_0_56]) ).
cnf(c_0_61,plain,
r3(X1,esk13_1(X1),X1),
i_0_25 ).
cnf(c_0_62,plain,
esk13_1(X1) = esk5_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_57,c_0_58]) ).
cnf(c_0_63,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,esk1_2(X2,X3))
| ~ r2(X4,esk10_1(X3))
| ~ r1(X2)
| ~ r1(X4)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_59,c_0_60]) ).
cnf(c_0_64,plain,
r2(esk4_2(X1,X2),esk1_2(X1,X2)),
i_0_2 ).
cnf(c_0_65,plain,
( r2(X1,X2)
| X2 != esk10_1(X1) ),
i_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_66,plain,
( X1 = esk11_2(X2,X3)
| ~ r3(X2,X3,X1) ),
i_0_22 ).
cnf(c_0_67,plain,
r3(X1,esk5_0,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_61,c_0_62]) ).
cnf(c_0_68,plain,
r3(X1,X2,esk4_2(X1,X2)),
i_0_1 ).
cnf(c_0_69,plain,
( ~ r2(X1,esk10_1(X2))
| ~ r1(esk4_2(X3,X2))
| ~ r1(X3)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_63,c_0_64]) ).
cnf(c_0_70,plain,
r2(X1,esk10_1(X1)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_65]) ).
cnf(c_0_71,plain,
esk11_2(X1,esk5_0) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_66,c_0_67]) ).
cnf(c_0_72,plain,
esk11_2(X1,X2) = esk4_2(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_66,c_0_68]) ).
cnf(c_0_73,plain,
( ~ r1(esk4_2(X1,X2))
| ~ r1(X1)
| ~ r1(X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_69,c_0_70]) ).
cnf(c_0_74,plain,
esk4_2(X1,esk5_0) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_71,c_0_72]) ).
cnf(c_0_75,plain,
r1(esk5_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_58,c_0_62]) ).
cnf(c_0_76,plain,
~ r1(X1),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_73,c_0_74]),c_0_75])]) ).
cnf(c_0_77,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_75,c_0_76]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : NUN054+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 2 07:36:17 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.18/0.44 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 7.85/2.42 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y:
% 7.85/2.42 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.85/2.42 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 7.85/2.42
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof found!
% 7.85/2.42 # SZS status Theorem
% 7.85/2.42 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object total steps : 37
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object clause steps : 26
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object formula steps : 11
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object conjectures : 4
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object formula conjectures : 1
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object initial clauses used : 11
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object initial formulas used : 11
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object generating inferences : 9
% 7.85/2.42 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 8
% 7.85/2.42 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.85/2.42 # Parsed axioms : 28
% 7.85/2.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Initial clauses : 28
% 7.85/2.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 28
% 7.85/2.42 # Processed clauses : 102
% 7.85/2.42 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # ...subsumed : 20
% 7.85/2.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 82
% 7.85/2.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 7.85/2.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 7.85/2.42 # Backward-rewritten : 18
% 7.85/2.42 # Generated clauses : 143
% 7.85/2.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 128
% 7.85/2.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 13
% 7.85/2.42 # Paramodulations : 130
% 7.85/2.42 # Factorizations : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Equation resolutions : 9
% 7.85/2.42 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 56
% 7.85/2.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 7.85/2.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Negative unit clauses : 5
% 7.85/2.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 7.85/2.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 7.85/2.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 73
% 7.85/2.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 23
% 7.85/2.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 565
% 7.85/2.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 309
% 7.85/2.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 29
% 7.85/2.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 129
% 7.85/2.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 25
% 7.85/2.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 7.85/2.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 7.85/2.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1701
% 7.85/2.42
% 7.85/2.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.85/2.42 # User time : 0.016 s
% 7.85/2.42 # System time : 0.004 s
% 7.85/2.42 # Total time : 0.021 s
% 7.85/2.42 # ...preprocessing : 0.017 s
% 7.85/2.42 # ...main loop : 0.004 s
% 7.85/2.42 # Maximum resident set size: 7124 pages
% 7.85/2.42
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------