↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : REL049+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n007.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 02:04:10 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.25s 0.54s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   17 (  14 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   23 (  22 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   10 (   4   ~;   0   |;   4   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   22 (   0 sgn  16   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(goals,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] :
      ( ( join(X3,X2) = X2
        & join(X1,X2) = X2 )
     => join(join(X1,X3),X2) = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).

fof(maddux1_join_commutativity,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',maddux1_join_commutativity) ).

fof(maddux2_join_associativity,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(join(X1,X2),X3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',maddux2_join_associativity) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
        ( ( join(X3,X2) = X2
          & join(X1,X2) = X2 )
       => join(join(X1,X3),X2) = X2 ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( join(join(esk1_0,esk3_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0
    & join(esk3_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0
    & join(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0 ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X7,X8] : join(X7,X8) = join(X8,X7),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[maddux1_join_commutativity]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X9,X10,X11] : join(X9,join(X10,X11)) = join(join(X9,X10),X11),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[maddux2_join_associativity]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    join(join(esk1_0,esk3_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(join(X1,X2),X3),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk2_0,esk1_0) = esk2_0,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk3_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk2_0,join(esk1_0,esk3_0)) != esk2_0,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk2_0,join(esk1_0,X1)) = join(esk2_0,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk2_0,esk3_0) = esk2_0,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : REL049+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.44  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.44  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.44  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.44  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.44  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.44  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.44  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:06:37 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.44  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.16/0.44  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.51  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.51  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/0.54  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % new_bool_3 with pid 137872 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.54  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.54  % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % SubtermCWHack with pid 137875 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.54  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.54  % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.54  
% 0.25/0.54  % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.54  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.54  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.54  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.25/0.54  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 11
% 0.25/0.54  % Initial clauses                      : 5
% 0.25/0.54  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 5
% 0.25/0.54  % Processed clauses                    : 9
% 0.25/0.54  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % ...remaining for further processing  : 9
% 0.25/0.54  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Backward-rewritten                   : 3
% 0.25/0.54  % Generated clauses                    : 13
% 0.25/0.54  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.25/0.54  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Paramodulations                      : 13
% 0.25/0.54  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Total rewrite steps                  : 13
% 0.25/0.54  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54  % Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.25/0.54  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.25/0.54  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.54  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.54  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.25/0.54  % ...number of literals in the above   : 6
% 0.25/0.54  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.25/0.54  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 5
% 0.25/0.54  % BW rewrite match successes           : 5
% 0.25/0.54  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/0.54  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 428
% 0.25/0.54  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 104
% 0.25/0.54  
% 0.25/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.54  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.54  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.25/0.54  
% 0.25/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.54  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.54  % Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.25/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.54  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------