↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET115-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n014.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 02:16:36 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.18s 0.54s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.18s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   7 unt;   2 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   11 (  10 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    2 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets3_1,negated_conjecture,
    ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets3_1) ).

cnf(prove_unique_1st_in_pair_of_non_sets,negated_conjecture,
    first(x) != x,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_unique_1st_in_pair_of_non_sets) ).

cnf(existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4,axiom,
    ( first(X1) = X1
    | ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_unique_1st_and_2nd_in_pair_of_non_sets3_1]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    first(x) != x,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_unique_1st_in_pair_of_non_sets]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ordered_pair(first(x),second(x)) != x,
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
    ( first(X1) = X1
    | ordered_pair(first(X1),second(X1)) = X1 ),
    existence_of_1st_and_2nd_4 ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    first(x) != x,
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : SET115-7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38  % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.12/0.38  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:53:49 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.39  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.12/0.39  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.47  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.47  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
% 0.18/0.54  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.18/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % new_bool_1 with pid 3181110 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.18/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.18/0.54  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.18/0.54  % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3181113 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.18/0.54  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.54  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.18/0.54  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.18/0.54  % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.54  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/0.54  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.54  % Preprocessing time       : 0.003 s
% 0.18/0.54  
% 0.18/0.54  % Proof found!
% 0.18/0.54  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.18/0.54  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.18/0.54  % Parsed axioms                        : 161
% 0.18/0.54  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 95
% 0.18/0.54  % Initial clauses                      : 66
% 0.18/0.54  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 66
% 0.18/0.54  % Processed clauses                    : 44
% 0.18/0.54  % ...of these trivial                  : 3
% 0.18/0.54  % ...subsumed                          : 4
% 0.18/0.54  % ...remaining for further processing  : 37
% 0.18/0.54  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 0.18/0.54  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.18/0.54  % Generated clauses                    : 151
% 0.18/0.54  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 84
% 0.18/0.54  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Paramodulations                      : 149
% 0.18/0.54  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Equation resolutions                 : 2
% 0.18/0.54  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Total rewrite steps                  : 69
% 0.18/0.54  % ...of those cached                   : 45
% 0.18/0.54  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.18/0.54  % Current number of processed clauses  : 34
% 0.18/0.54  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 18
% 0.18/0.54  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.18/0.54  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.18/0.54  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 11
% 0.18/0.54  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 103
% 0.18/0.54  % ...number of literals in the above   : 233
% 0.18/0.54  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.18/0.54  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 17
% 0.18/0.54  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.18/0.54  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.18/0.54  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.18/0.54  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 15
% 0.18/0.54  % BW rewrite match successes           : 10
% 0.18/0.54  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.18/0.54  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3160
% 0.18/0.54  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 521
% 0.18/0.54  
% 0.18/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.54  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.18/0.54  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.18/0.54  % Total time               : 0.013 s
% 0.18/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 3756 pages
% 0.18/0.54  
% 0.18/0.54  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.54  % User time                : 0.015 s
% 0.18/0.54  % System time              : 0.011 s
% 0.18/0.54  % Total time               : 0.027 s
% 0.18/0.54  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.18/0.54  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------