↑ 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  : SEU303+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n015.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 02:28:54 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 7.55s 2.24s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.55s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   15 (   5 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   39 (   3 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   38 (  14   ~;  11   |;   7   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   6  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (   0 sgn   8   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t26_finset_1,conjecture,
    ! [X1] :
      ( ( function(X1)
        & relation(X1) )
     => ( finite(relation_dom(X1))
       => finite(relation_rng(X1)) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t26_finset_1) ).

fof(fc13_finset_1,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( ( finite(X2)
        & function(X1)
        & relation(X1) )
     => finite(relation_image(X1,X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fc13_finset_1) ).

fof(t146_relat_1,lemma,
    ! [X1] :
      ( relation(X1)
     => relation_image(X1,relation_dom(X1)) = relation_rng(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t146_relat_1) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1] :
        ( ( function(X1)
          & relation(X1) )
       => ( finite(relation_dom(X1))
         => finite(relation_rng(X1)) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t26_finset_1]) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X513,X514] :
      ( finite(relation_image(X513,X514))
      | ~ finite(X514)
      | ~ function(X513)
      | ~ relation(X513) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc13_finset_1])])]) ).

fof(c_0_5,lemma,
    ! [X1050] :
      ( relation_image(X1050,relation_dom(X1050)) = relation_rng(X1050)
      | ~ relation(X1050) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t146_relat_1])])]) ).

fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ finite(relation_rng(esk282_0))
    & finite(relation_dom(esk282_0))
    & function(esk282_0)
    & relation(esk282_0) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ finite(X2)
    | ~ function(X1)
    | ~ relation(X1)
    | finite(relation_image(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,lemma,
    ( ~ relation(X1)
    | relation_image(X1,relation_dom(X1)) = relation_rng(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ finite(relation_rng(esk282_0)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
    ( ~ finite(relation_dom(X1))
    | ~ function(X1)
    | ~ relation(X1)
    | finite(relation_rng(X1)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    relation(esk282_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    function(esk282_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    finite(relation_dom(esk282_0)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : SEU303+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.68  % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.68  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.68  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.68  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.68  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.68  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.68  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.19/0.68  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 06:12:36 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.68  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.68  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.76  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.76  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
% 7.55/2.24  % Version: 3.5.1
% 7.55/2.24  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 7.55/2.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 731285 completed with status 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 7.55/2.24  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 7.55/2.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 7.55/2.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 7.55/2.24  % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 7.55/2.24  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting C12_02_nc_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 113s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S2g with 113s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % C12_02_nc_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 731294 completed with status 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Result found by C12_02_nc_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 7.55/2.24  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 7.55/2.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 7.55/2.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 7.55/2.24  % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 7.55/2.24  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Starting C12_02_nc_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 113s (1) cores
% 7.55/2.24  % Preprocessing time       : 0.049 s
% 7.55/2.24  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 7.55/2.24  
% 7.55/2.24  % Proof found!
% 7.55/2.24  % SZS status Theorem
% 7.55/2.24  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.55/2.24  % Parsed axioms                        : 420
% 7.55/2.24  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Initial clauses                      : 1731
% 7.55/2.24  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 37
% 7.55/2.24  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 1694
% 7.55/2.24  % Processed clauses                    : 2732
% 7.55/2.24  % ...of these trivial                  : 20
% 7.55/2.24  % ...subsumed                          : 296
% 7.55/2.24  % ...remaining for further processing  : 2416
% 7.55/2.24  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 512
% 7.55/2.24  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Backward-subsumed                    : 15
% 7.55/2.24  % Backward-rewritten                   : 30
% 7.55/2.24  % Generated clauses                    : 1408
% 7.55/2.24  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1073
% 7.55/2.24  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 192
% 7.55/2.24  % Paramodulations                      : 1025
% 7.55/2.24  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % NegExts                              : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Equation resolutions                 : 512
% 7.55/2.24  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Total rewrite steps                  : 856
% 7.55/2.24  % ...of those cached                   : 668
% 7.55/2.24  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 7.55/2.24  % Current number of processed clauses  : 436
% 7.55/2.24  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 123
% 7.55/2.24  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 7.55/2.24  %    Negative unit clauses             : 50
% 7.55/2.24  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 260
% 7.55/2.24  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1598
% 7.55/2.24  % ...number of literals in the above   : 6797
% 7.55/2.24  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1616
% 7.55/2.24  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1778809
% 7.55/2.24  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 165942
% 7.55/2.24  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 381
% 7.55/2.24  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5192
% 7.55/2.24  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 93
% 7.55/2.24  % BW rewrite match successes           : 69
% 7.55/2.24  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.55/2.24  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 157696
% 7.55/2.24  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 24107
% 7.55/2.24  
% 7.55/2.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 7.55/2.24  % User time                : 1.278 s
% 7.55/2.24  % System time              : 0.029 s
% 7.55/2.24  % Total time               : 1.307 s
% 7.55/2.24  % Maximum resident set size: 8292 pages
% 7.55/2.24  
% 7.55/2.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 7.55/2.24  % User time                : 4.572 s
% 7.55/2.24  % System time              : 0.148 s
% 7.55/2.24  % Total time               : 4.721 s
% 7.55/2.24  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 7.55/2.24  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------