↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : REL015-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n011.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 02:03:54 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.55s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   14
%            Number of leaves      :   12
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   45 (  45 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   45 (  44 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   60 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(converse_multiplicativity_10,axiom,
    converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_multiplicativity_10) ).

cnf(composition_identity_6,axiom,
    composition(X1,one) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',composition_identity_6) ).

cnf(converse_idempotence_8,axiom,
    converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_idempotence_8) ).

cnf(converse_cancellativity_11,axiom,
    join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2)) = complement(X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_cancellativity_11) ).

cnf(maddux1_join_commutativity_1,axiom,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',maddux1_join_commutativity_1) ).

cnf(def_zero_13,axiom,
    zero = meet(X1,complement(X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',def_zero_13) ).

cnf(maddux4_definiton_of_meet_4,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',maddux4_definiton_of_meet_4) ).

cnf(def_top_12,axiom,
    top = join(X1,complement(X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',def_top_12) ).

cnf(maddux3_a_kind_of_de_Morgan_3,axiom,
    X1 = join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',maddux3_a_kind_of_de_Morgan_3) ).

cnf(maddux2_join_associativity_2,axiom,
    join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(join(X1,X2),X3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',maddux2_join_associativity_2) ).

cnf(composition_distributivity_7,axiom,
    composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',composition_distributivity_7) ).

cnf(goals_14,negated_conjecture,
    composition(top,top) != top,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals_14) ).

cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
    converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
    converse_multiplicativity_10 ).

cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
    composition(X1,one) = X1,
    composition_identity_6 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    composition(converse(one),converse(X1)) = converse(X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
    converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    converse_idempotence_8 ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    composition(converse(one),X1) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
    join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2)) = complement(X2),
    converse_cancellativity_11 ).

cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    maddux1_join_commutativity_1 ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    converse(one) = one,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_16]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,axiom,
    zero = meet(X1,complement(X1)),
    def_zero_13 ).

cnf(c_0_21,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),
    maddux4_definiton_of_meet_4 ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1)))) = complement(X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,plain,
    composition(one,X1) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    zero = complement(join(complement(X1),complement(complement(X1)))),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,axiom,
    top = join(X1,complement(X1)),
    def_top_12 ).

cnf(c_0_26,plain,
    join(complement(X1),complement(X1)) = complement(X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]),c_0_19]),c_0_23]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,plain,
    complement(top) = zero,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_28,axiom,
    X1 = join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2))),
    maddux3_a_kind_of_de_Morgan_3 ).

cnf(c_0_29,axiom,
    join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(join(X1,X2),X3),
    maddux2_join_associativity_2 ).

cnf(c_0_30,plain,
    join(zero,zero) = zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]) ).

cnf(c_0_31,plain,
    join(complement(join(complement(X1),X2)),complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_32,plain,
    join(zero,join(zero,X1)) = join(zero,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_33,plain,
    join(zero,complement(complement(X1))) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_26]),c_0_25]),c_0_27]),c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_34,plain,
    join(X1,join(complement(X1),X2)) = join(top,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_35,plain,
    join(zero,X1) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_32,c_0_33]) ).

cnf(c_0_36,plain,
    join(top,complement(X1)) = top,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_34,c_0_26]),c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    complement(complement(X1)) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_33,c_0_35]) ).

cnf(c_0_38,axiom,
    composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
    composition_distributivity_7 ).

cnf(c_0_39,plain,
    join(top,X1) = top,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_36,c_0_37]) ).

cnf(c_0_40,plain,
    join(composition(top,X1),composition(X2,X1)) = composition(top,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_38,c_0_39]) ).

cnf(c_0_41,negated_conjecture,
    composition(top,top) != top,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goals_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_42,plain,
    join(X1,composition(top,X1)) = composition(top,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_40,c_0_23]),c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_43,negated_conjecture,
    composition(top,top) != top,
    c_0_41 ).

cnf(c_0_44,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_39,c_0_42]),c_0_43]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : REL015-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.41  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.41  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.41  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.41  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.41  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.41  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 03:59:12 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.42  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/0.42  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.48  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.48  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
% 0.25/0.55  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.55  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 928249 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.25/0.55  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.55  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.55  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.55  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with pid 928255 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Result found by H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.25/0.55  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.55  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.55  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.55  % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.55  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.55  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.55  
% 0.25/0.55  % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.55  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.55  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.55  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.25/0.55  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Initial clauses                      : 14
% 0.25/0.55  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.25/0.55  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 13
% 0.25/0.55  % Processed clauses                    : 126
% 0.25/0.55  % ...of these trivial                  : 44
% 0.25/0.55  % ...subsumed                          : 6
% 0.25/0.55  % ...remaining for further processing  : 76
% 0.25/0.55  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Backward-rewritten                   : 20
% 0.25/0.55  % Generated clauses                    : 1320
% 0.25/0.55  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 433
% 0.25/0.55  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Paramodulations                      : 1320
% 0.25/0.55  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1898
% 0.25/0.55  % ...of those cached                   : 1453
% 0.25/0.55  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.25/0.55  % Current number of processed clauses  : 56
% 0.25/0.55  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 54
% 0.25/0.55  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.55  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.25/0.55  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 283
% 0.25/0.55  % ...number of literals in the above   : 283
% 0.25/0.55  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Current number of archived clauses   : 21
% 0.25/0.55  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 60
% 0.25/0.55  % BW rewrite match successes           : 20
% 0.25/0.55  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/0.55  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 9479
% 0.25/0.55  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2
% 0.25/0.55  
% 0.25/0.55  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55  % User time                : 0.013 s
% 0.25/0.55  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.55  % Total time               : 0.018 s
% 0.25/0.55  % Maximum resident set size: 3388 pages
% 0.25/0.55  
% 0.25/0.55  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.55  % User time                : 0.068 s
% 0.25/0.55  % System time              : 0.026 s
% 0.25/0.55  % Total time               : 0.094 s
% 0.25/0.55  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.55  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------