↑ Up

E---3.5.1.CAX-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SCT146+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n019.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 02:07:57 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : ContradictoryAxioms 0.16s 10.91s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (  14 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   14 (  13 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    7 (   7   ~;   0   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   0 con; 1-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   60 (  25 sgn  25   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(fact_not__Cons__self,axiom,
    ! [X39,X6,X38] : X38 != hAPP(hAPP(c_List_Olist_OCons(X6),X39),X38),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_not__Cons__self) ).

fof(help_c__COMBS__1,axiom,
    ! [X13,X97,X16,X6,X33,X14] : hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X14,X33,X6),X16),X97),X13) = hAPP(hAPP(X16,X13),hAPP(X97,X13)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',help_c__COMBS__1) ).

fof(help_c__COMBI__1,axiom,
    ! [X117,X6] : hAPP(c_COMBI(X6),X117) = X117,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',help_c__COMBI__1) ).

fof(c_0_3,plain,
    ! [X39,X6,X38] : X38 != hAPP(hAPP(c_List_Olist_OCons(X6),X39),X38),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_not__Cons__self]) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X256,X257,X258] : X258 != hAPP(hAPP(c_List_Olist_OCons(X257),X256),X258),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])]) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X2196,X2197,X2198,X2199,X2200,X2201] : hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X2201,X2200,X2199),X2198),X2197),X2196) = hAPP(hAPP(X2198,X2196),hAPP(X2197,X2196)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[help_c__COMBS__1]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    X1 != hAPP(hAPP(c_List_Olist_OCons(X2),X3),X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),X4),X5),X6) = hAPP(hAPP(X4,X6),hAPP(X5,X6)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),c_List_Olist_OCons(X4)),X5),X6) != hAPP(X5,X6),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

fof(c_0_9,plain,
    ! [X2178,X2179] : hAPP(c_COMBI(X2179),X2178) = X2178,
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[help_c__COMBI__1]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),hAPP(c_COMBS(X4,X5,X6),c_List_Olist_OCons(X7))),X8),X9) != hAPP(X9,hAPP(X8,X9)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    hAPP(c_COMBI(X1),X2) = X2,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),hAPP(c_COMBS(X4,X5,X6),c_List_Olist_OCons(X7))),c_COMBI(X8)),X9) != hAPP(X9,X9),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    $false,
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SCT146+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/10.56  % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.11/10.56  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/10.56  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/10.56  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/10.56  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/10.56  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/10.56  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/10.56  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:34:46 UTC 2026
% 0.11/10.56  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/10.56  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/10.61  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/10.61  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
% 0.16/10.91  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/10.91  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.91  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1690167 completed with status 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.16/10.91  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.91  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/10.91  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/10.91  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.16/10.91  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1690176 completed with status 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Result found by U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.16/10.91  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.91  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/10.91  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/10.91  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.16/10.91  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.91  % Preprocessing time       : 0.011 s
% 0.16/10.91  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.16/10.91  
% 0.16/10.91  % Proof found!
% 0.16/10.91  % SZS status ContradictoryAxioms
% 0.16/10.91  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/10.91  % Parsed axioms                        : 523
% 0.16/10.91  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Initial clauses                      : 846
% 0.16/10.91  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 48
% 0.16/10.91  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 798
% 0.16/10.91  % Processed clauses                    : 1860
% 0.16/10.91  % ...of these trivial                  : 38
% 0.16/10.91  % ...subsumed                          : 550
% 0.16/10.91  % ...remaining for further processing  : 1272
% 0.16/10.91  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 153
% 0.16/10.91  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Backward-subsumed                    : 7
% 0.16/10.91  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.16/10.91  % Generated clauses                    : 4087
% 0.16/10.91  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3587
% 0.16/10.91  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.16/10.91  % Paramodulations                      : 3937
% 0.16/10.91  % Factorizations                       : 4
% 0.16/10.91  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Equation resolutions                 : 165
% 0.16/10.91  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1184
% 0.16/10.91  % ...of those cached                   : 942
% 0.16/10.91  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.16/10.91  % Current number of processed clauses  : 546
% 0.16/10.91  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 123
% 0.16/10.91  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 9
% 0.16/10.91  %    Negative unit clauses             : 155
% 0.16/10.91  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 259
% 0.16/10.91  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3130
% 0.16/10.91  % ...number of literals in the above   : 6212
% 0.16/10.91  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Current number of archived clauses   : 620
% 0.16/10.91  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 107021
% 0.16/10.91  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 40261
% 0.16/10.91  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 249
% 0.16/10.91  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2008
% 0.16/10.91  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 408
% 0.16/10.91  % BW rewrite match successes           : 28
% 0.16/10.91  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.16/10.91  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 216724
% 0.16/10.91  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 13329
% 0.16/10.91  
% 0.16/10.91  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/10.91  % User time                : 0.241 s
% 0.16/10.91  % System time              : 0.015 s
% 0.16/10.91  % Total time               : 0.256 s
% 0.16/10.91  % Maximum resident set size: 7836 pages
% 0.16/10.91  
% 0.16/10.91  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/10.91  % User time                : 0.993 s
% 0.16/10.91  % System time              : 0.068 s
% 0.16/10.91  % Total time               : 1.061 s
% 0.16/10.92  % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.16/10.92  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------