↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : RNG006-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n009.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 02:05:27 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.10s 0.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   21 (  13 unt;   0 nHn;  21 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   41 (   0 equ;  23 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   7 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   36 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(distributivity2,axiom,
    ( ~ sum(X3,X5,X7)
    | ~ sum(X2,X4,X6)
    | ~ product(X1,X4,X5)
    | ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,X6,X7) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/RNG001-0.ax',distributivity2) ).

cnf(aPb_plus_IaPc,hypothesis,
    sum(aPb,additive_inverse(aPc),aPb_S_IaPc),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',aPb_plus_IaPc) ).

cnf(product_lemma1,axiom,
    ( ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,additive_inverse(X2),additive_inverse(X3)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',product_lemma1) ).

cnf(a_times_b,hypothesis,
    product(a,b,aPb),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_times_b) ).

cnf(a_times_c,hypothesis,
    product(a,c,aPc),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_times_c) ).

cnf(prove_a_times_bS_Ic_is_aPb_S__IaPc,negated_conjecture,
    ~ product(a,bS_Ic,aPb_S_IaPc),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_times_bS_Ic_is_aPb_S__IaPc) ).

cnf(b_plus_inverse_c,hypothesis,
    sum(b,additive_inverse(c),bS_Ic),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b_plus_inverse_c) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ sum(X3,X5,X7)
    | ~ sum(X2,X4,X6)
    | ~ product(X1,X4,X5)
    | ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,X6,X7) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[distributivity2]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ sum(X3,X5,X7)
    | ~ sum(X2,X4,X6)
    | ~ product(X1,X4,X5)
    | ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,X6,X7) ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
    sum(aPb,additive_inverse(aPc),aPb_S_IaPc),
    aPb_plus_IaPc ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,additive_inverse(X2),additive_inverse(X3)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[product_lemma1]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    ( ~ sum(X4,X3,X2)
    | ~ product(X1,X4,aPb)
    | ~ product(X1,X3,additive_inverse(aPc))
    | product(X1,X2,aPb_S_IaPc) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
    product(a,b,aPb),
    a_times_b ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
    | product(X1,additive_inverse(X2),additive_inverse(X3)) ),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
    product(a,c,aPc),
    a_times_c ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    ~ product(a,bS_Ic,aPb_S_IaPc),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_times_bS_Ic_is_aPb_S__IaPc]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    ( ~ sum(b,X2,X1)
    | ~ product(a,X2,additive_inverse(aPc))
    | product(a,X1,aPb_S_IaPc) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    sum(b,additive_inverse(c),bS_Ic),
    b_plus_inverse_c ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    product(a,additive_inverse(c),additive_inverse(aPc)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
    ~ product(a,bS_Ic,aPb_S_IaPc),
    c_0_15 ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18])]),c_0_19]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : RNG006-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:10:27 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41  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
% 0.10/0.44  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 814476 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.44  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.44  % Search class: FHUSM-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 814481 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.44  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.44  % Search class: FHUSM-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.44  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.10/0.44  
% 0.10/0.44  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.44  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.10/0.44  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.44  % Parsed axioms                        : 25
% 0.10/0.44  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Initial clauses                      : 25
% 0.10/0.44  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 25
% 0.10/0.44  % Processed clauses                    : 212
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of these trivial                  : 20
% 0.10/0.44  % ...subsumed                          : 20
% 0.10/0.44  % ...remaining for further processing  : 172
% 0.10/0.44  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Backward-rewritten                   : 11
% 0.10/0.44  % Generated clauses                    : 598
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 438
% 0.10/0.44  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Paramodulations                      : 598
% 0.10/0.44  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Total rewrite steps                  : 312
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of those cached                   : 218
% 0.10/0.44  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of processed clauses  : 136
% 0.10/0.44  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 44
% 0.10/0.44  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.10/0.44  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.10/0.44  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 90
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 272
% 0.10/0.44  % ...number of literals in the above   : 625
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of archived clauses   : 36
% 0.10/0.44  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1083
% 0.10/0.44  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 841
% 0.10/0.44  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 19
% 0.10/0.44  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 110
% 0.10/0.44  % BW rewrite match successes           : 30
% 0.10/0.44  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 7651
% 0.10/0.44  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 64
% 0.10/0.44  
% 0.10/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.45  % User time                : 0.015 s
% 0.10/0.45  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.45  % Total time               : 0.019 s
% 0.10/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 3652 pages
% 0.10/0.45  
% 0.10/0.45  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.45  % User time                : 0.081 s
% 0.10/0.45  % System time              : 0.019 s
% 0.10/0.45  % Total time               : 0.099 s
% 0.10/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.10/0.45  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------