↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET557^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.6.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n005.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:21:56 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.10s 0.25s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   10 (   9 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   14 (   4 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   43 (   8   ~;   3   |;   0   &;  31   @)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   10 (   6 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   12 (  12   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    4 (   2 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   19 (   3   ^;  12   !;   4   ?;  19   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
    epred1_0: $i > $i > $o ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    esk1_1: ( $i > $o ) > $i ).

thf(surjectiveCantorThm,conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
      ! [X2: $i > $o] :
      ? [X3: $i] :
        ( ( X1 @ X3 )
        = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.WG23VQxVNd/E---3.1_1669783.p',surjectiveCantorThm) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
        ! [X2: $i > $o] :
        ? [X3: $i] :
          ( ( X1 @ X3 )
          = X2 ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[surjectiveCantorThm]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X8: $i > $o] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X8 ) )
      = X8 ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i > $o] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) )
      = X2 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i > $o,X10: $i] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X10 )
    <=> ( X2 @ X10 ) ),
    inference(arg_cong,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i > $o,X3: $i] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X3 )
      | ~ ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i > $o,X3: $i] :
      ( ( epred1_0
        @ ( esk1_1
          @ ^ [Z0: $i] :
              ~ ( X2 @ Z0 ) )
        @ X3 )
      | ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(primitive_enumeration,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: $i > $o,X3: $i] :
      ( ( X2 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X3 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ( epred1_0
    @ ( esk1_1
      @ ^ [Z0: $i] :
          ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 @ Z0 ) )
    @ ( esk1_1
      @ ^ [Z0: $i] :
          ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 @ Z0 ) ) ),
    inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),c_0_8])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SET557^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.6.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.17  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.17  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.17  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.17  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.17  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 13:37:16 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.22  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.23  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.WG23VQxVNd/E---3.1_1669783.p
% 0.10/0.25  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.10/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.10/0.25  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % post_as_ho4 with pid 1669815 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.25  % Result found by post_as_ho4
% 0.10/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.10/0.25  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.25  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.25  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.10/0.25  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1669823 completed with status 10
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % post_as_ho10 with pid 1669830 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.25  % Result found by post_as_ho10
% 0.10/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.10/0.25  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.25  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.25  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.10/0.25  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1669823 completed with status 10
% 0.10/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.25  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.25  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.10/0.25  
% 0.10/0.25  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.25  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.25  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.26  % Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.10/0.26  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Initial clauses                      : 1
% 0.10/0.26  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 1
% 0.10/0.26  % Processed clauses                    : 17
% 0.10/0.26  % ...of these trivial                  : 2
% 0.10/0.26  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.10/0.26  % ...remaining for further processing  : 12
% 0.10/0.26  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Generated clauses                    : 33
% 0.10/0.26  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 24
% 0.10/0.26  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Paramodulations                      : 15
% 0.10/0.26  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.10/0.26  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.10/0.26  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Total rewrite steps                  : 4
% 0.10/0.26  % ...of those cached                   : 1
% 0.10/0.26  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.26  % Current number of processed clauses  : 10
% 0.10/0.26  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.10/0.26  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.26  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.10/0.26  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 4
% 0.10/0.26  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8
% 0.10/0.26  % ...number of literals in the above   : 13
% 0.10/0.26  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.10/0.26  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.10/0.26  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.10/0.26  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 0.10/0.26  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.10/0.26  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 4
% 0.10/0.26  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.26  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1486
% 0.10/0.26  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 15
% 0.10/0.26  
% 0.10/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.26  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.26  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.26  % Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.10/0.26  
% 0.10/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.26  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.26  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.26  % Total time               : 0.013 s
% 0.10/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.26  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------