↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET622+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 : Thu Sep 24 02:17:44 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.10s 0.43s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (  14 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   14 (  13 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    3 (   3   ~;   0   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   30 (   0 sgn  22   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_th98,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : difference(X1,symmetric_difference(X2,X3)) = union(difference(X1,union(X2,X3)),intersection(intersection(X1,X2),X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_th98) ).

fof(associativity_of_intersection,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : intersection(intersection(X1,X2),X3) = intersection(X1,intersection(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',associativity_of_intersection) ).

fof(difference_difference_union2,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : difference(X1,difference(X2,X3)) = union(difference(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',difference_difference_union2) ).

fof(symmetric_difference_and_difference,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = difference(union(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetric_difference_and_difference) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2,X3] : difference(X1,symmetric_difference(X2,X3)) = union(difference(X1,union(X2,X3)),intersection(intersection(X1,X2),X3)),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_th98]) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    difference(esk1_0,symmetric_difference(esk2_0,esk3_0)) != union(difference(esk1_0,union(esk2_0,esk3_0)),intersection(intersection(esk1_0,esk2_0),esk3_0)),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X19,X20,X21] : intersection(intersection(X19,X20),X21) = intersection(X19,intersection(X20,X21)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[associativity_of_intersection]) ).

fof(c_0_7,plain,
    ! [X7,X8,X9] : difference(X7,difference(X8,X9)) = union(difference(X7,X8),intersection(X7,X9)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[difference_difference_union2]) ).

fof(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X10,X11] : symmetric_difference(X10,X11) = difference(union(X10,X11),intersection(X10,X11)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[symmetric_difference_and_difference]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    difference(esk1_0,symmetric_difference(esk2_0,esk3_0)) != union(difference(esk1_0,union(esk2_0,esk3_0)),intersection(intersection(esk1_0,esk2_0),esk3_0)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    intersection(intersection(X1,X2),X3) = intersection(X1,intersection(X2,X3)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    difference(X1,difference(X2,X3)) = union(difference(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X3)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = difference(union(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X2)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SET622+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:30:06 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41  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
% 0.10/0.43  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % new_bool_3 with pid 2340152 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.43  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.43  % Search class: FGHSM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2340155 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.43  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.43  % Search class: FGHSM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.43  
% 0.10/0.43  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.43  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.43  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.43  % Parsed axioms                        : 15
% 0.10/0.43  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 3
% 0.10/0.43  % Initial clauses                      : 21
% 0.10/0.43  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 0.10/0.43  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 19
% 0.10/0.43  % Processed clauses                    : 88
% 0.10/0.43  % ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 0.10/0.43  % ...subsumed                          : 53
% 0.10/0.43  % ...remaining for further processing  : 33
% 0.10/0.43  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Generated clauses                    : 242
% 0.10/0.43  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 228
% 0.10/0.43  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Paramodulations                      : 240
% 0.10/0.43  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.10/0.43  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Total rewrite steps                  : 58
% 0.10/0.43  % ...of those cached                   : 30
% 0.10/0.43  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of processed clauses  : 33
% 0.10/0.43  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.10/0.43  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.10/0.43  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.43  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 23
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 159
% 0.10/0.43  % ...number of literals in the above   : 297
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 209
% 0.10/0.43  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 203
% 0.10/0.43  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 46
% 0.10/0.43  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.10/0.43  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 15
% 0.10/0.43  % BW rewrite match successes           : 14
% 0.10/0.43  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.43  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3234
% 0.10/0.43  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 249
% 0.10/0.43  
% 0.10/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.10/0.43  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 3600 pages
% 0.10/0.43  
% 0.10/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.43  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.10/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.43  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------