↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET595^5 : 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 : n004.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 08:21:59 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.08s 0.26s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.08s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   10 (   7 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   24 (   5 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   67 (  14   ~;   8   |;   7   &;  31   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   6  =>;   0  <=;   1 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    8 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    6 (   6   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    5 (   3 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   5   ^;  11   !;   0   ?;  16   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
    a: $tType ).

thf(decl_23,type,
    epred1_0: a > $o ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    epred2_0: a > $o ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    esk3_0: a ).

thf(cBOOL_PROP_54_pme,conjecture,
    ! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o] :
      ( ! [X3: a] :
          ( ( X1 @ X3 )
         => ( X2 @ X3 ) )
     => ( X2
        = ( ^ [X4: a] :
              ( ( X1 @ X4 )
              | ( ( X2 @ X4 )
                & ~ ( X1 @ X4 ) ) ) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.eqh4rHARHz/E---3.1_1292186.p',cBOOL_PROP_54_pme) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o] :
        ( ! [X3: a] :
            ( ( X1 @ X3 )
           => ( X2 @ X3 ) )
       => ( X2
          = ( ^ [X4: a] :
                ( ( X1 @ X4 )
                | ( ( X2 @ X4 )
                  & ~ ( X1 @ X4 ) ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cBOOL_PROP_54_pme]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o] :
        ( ! [X3: a] :
            ( ( X1 @ X3 )
           => ( X2 @ X3 ) )
       => ( X2
          = ( ^ [Z0: a] :
                ( ( X1 @ Z0 )
                | ( ( X2 @ Z0 )
                  & ~ ( X1 @ Z0 ) ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X10: a] :
      ( ( ~ ( epred1_0 @ X10 )
        | ( epred2_0 @ X10 ) )
      & ( epred2_0
       != ( ^ [Z0: a] :
              ( ( epred1_0 @ Z0 )
              | ( ( epred2_0 @ Z0 )
                & ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 ) ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( epred2_0
   != ( ^ [Z0: a] :
          ( ( epred1_0 @ Z0 )
          | ( ( epred2_0 @ Z0 )
            & ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( ( epred1_0 @ esk3_0 )
      | ( ( epred2_0 @ esk3_0 )
        & ~ ( epred1_0 @ esk3_0 ) ) )
  <~> ( epred2_0 @ esk3_0 ) ),
    inference(neg_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X3: a] :
      ( ( epred2_0 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( epred1_0 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( epred1_0 @ esk3_0 ),
    inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]),c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( epred2_0 @ esk3_0 ),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]),c_0_7]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]),c_0_8]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SET595^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.18  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 13:38:22 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.18  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.18  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.23  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.24  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.eqh4rHARHz/E---3.1_1292186.p
% 0.08/0.26  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % new_bool_9 with pid 1292220 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.08/0.26  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.08/0.26  % Search class: HHUSF-FFSF00-MSSFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % partial match(1): HHUSF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1292226 completed with status 10
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % new_ho_10 with pid 1292230 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.08/0.26  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.08/0.26  % Search class: HHUSF-FFSF00-MSSFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % partial match(1): HHUSF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.08/0.26  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1292226 completed with status 10
% 0.08/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.26  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % Proof found!
% 0.08/0.26  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.08/0.26  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.08/0.26  % Parsed axioms                        : 2
% 0.08/0.26  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Initial clauses                      : 2
% 0.08/0.26  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 2
% 0.08/0.26  % Processed clauses                    : 8
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...remaining for further processing  : 7
% 0.08/0.26  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Generated clauses                    : 6
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.08/0.26  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Paramodulations                      : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % NegExts                              : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of processed clauses  : 4
% 0.08/0.26  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.08/0.26  %    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.08/0.26  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.08/0.26  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.08/0.26  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.08/0.26  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Condensation attempts                : 8
% 0.08/0.26  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.08/0.26  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 492
% 0.08/0.26  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 91
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.26  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.08/0.26  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 3884 pages
% 0.08/0.26  
% 0.08/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.26  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.08/0.26  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Total time               : 0.011 s
% 0.08/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.08/0.26  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------