↑ 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  : SEV311^5 : 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 : n013.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 08:36:27 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.25s 0.33s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SEV311^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.21  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.21  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.21  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.21  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.21  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.21  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.21  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.21  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 15:33:06 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.21  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.21  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.28  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.30  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.fbE6x1zMmj/E---3.1_2258737.p
% 0.25/0.33  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.33  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.25/0.33  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % post_as_ho1 with pid 2258752 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Result found by post_as_ho1
% 0.25/0.33  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.25/0.33  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.33  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.33  % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF22-SSSFFSBN
% 0.25/0.33  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2258765 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.33  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.25/0.33  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.33  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.33  % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF22-SSSFFSBN
% 0.25/0.33  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.33  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.33  
% 0.25/0.33  % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.33  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.33  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_sort1, type, a: $tType).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_23, type, cF: (a > $o) > a > $o).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_24, type, esk1_2: (a > $o) > (a > $o) > a).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_25, type, esk2_0: a).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_26, type, epred1_0: a > $o).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_27, type, epred2_0: a > $o).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_28, type, esk3_2: a > (a > $o) > a).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(decl_29, type, epred3_1: a > a > $o).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(cTHM521_pme, conjecture, (![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o]:((![X3:a]:(((X1 @ X3)=>(X2 @ X3)))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ X1 @ X3)=>(cF @ X2 @ X3)))))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ (^[X4:a]:(![X5:a > $o]:(((![X6:a]:((((cF @ X5 @ X6))=>((X5 @ X6)))))=>((X5 @ X4)))))) @ X3)=>![X5:a > $o]:((![X4:a]:(((cF @ X5 @ X4)=>(X5 @ X4)))=>(X5 @ X3)))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.fbE6x1zMmj/E---3.1_2258737.p', cTHM521_pme)).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~((![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o]:((![X3:a]:(((X1 @ X3)=>(X2 @ X3)))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ X1 @ X3)=>(cF @ X2 @ X3)))))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ (^[X4:a]:(![X5:a > $o]:(((![X6:a]:((((cF @ X5 @ X6))=>((X5 @ X6)))))=>((X5 @ X4)))))) @ X3)=>![X5:a > $o]:((![X4:a]:(((cF @ X5 @ X4)=>(X5 @ X4)))=>(X5 @ X3))))))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM521_pme])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ~((![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o]:((![X3:a]:(((X1 @ X3)=>(X2 @ X3)))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ X1 @ X3)=>(cF @ X2 @ X3)))))=>![X3:a]:(((cF @ (^[Z0:a]:(![X5:a > $o]:(((![X6:a]:((((cF @ X5 @ X6))=>(X5 @ X6))))=>(X5 @ Z0))))) @ X3)=>![X5:a > $o]:((![X4:a]:(((cF @ X5 @ X4)=>(X5 @ X4)))=>(X5 @ X3))))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ![X14:a > $o, X15:a > $o, X17:a, X20:a]:(((((X14 @ (esk1_2 @ X14 @ X15))|(~(cF @ X14 @ X17)|(cF @ X15 @ X17)))&(~(X15 @ (esk1_2 @ X14 @ X15))|(~(cF @ X14 @ X17)|(cF @ X15 @ X17))))&((cF @ (^[Z0:a]:(![X5:a > $o]:(((![X6:a]:((((cF @ X5 @ X6))=>(X5 @ X6))))=>(X5 @ Z0))))) @ esk2_0)&((~(cF @ epred1_0 @ X20)|(epred1_0 @ X20))&~(epred1_0 @ esk2_0))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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])])])])])])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_4, plain, ![X24:a, X25:a > $o, X28:a]:(((((cF @ X25 @ (esk3_2 @ X24 @ X25))|(X25 @ X24)|~(epred2_0 @ X24))&(~(X25 @ (esk3_2 @ X24 @ X25))|(X25 @ X24)|~(epred2_0 @ X24)))&((~(cF @ (epred3_1 @ X24) @ X28)|(epred3_1 @ X24 @ X28)|(epred2_0 @ X24))&(~(epred3_1 @ X24 @ X24)|(epred2_0 @ X24))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[])])])])])])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_5, plain, ![X23:a]:(((epred2_0 @ X23)<=>![X21:a > $o]:((![X22:a]:(((cF @ X21 @ X22)=>(X21 @ X22)))=>(X21 @ X23))))), introduced(definition)).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ![X3:a]:(((epred1_0 @ X3)|~((cF @ epred1_0 @ X3)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_7, plain, ![X1:a > $o, X3:a]:(((cF @ X1 @ (esk3_2 @ X3 @ X1))|(X1 @ X3)|~((epred2_0 @ X3)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_8, plain, ![X1:a > $o, X3:a]:(((X1 @ X3)|~((X1 @ (esk3_2 @ X3 @ X1)))|~((epred2_0 @ X3)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, (((cF @ epred2_0 @ esk2_0))=(($true))), inference(lift_lambdas,[status(thm)],[inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]), c_0_5])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, ![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o, X3:a]:(((cF @ X1 @ X3)|~((X1 @ (esk1_2 @ X2 @ X1)))|~((cF @ X2 @ X3)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, ![X3:a]:(((epred1_0 @ X3)|~((epred2_0 @ X3)))), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_7]), c_0_8])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, ![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o, X3:a]:(((X1 @ (esk1_2 @ X1 @ X2))|(cF @ X2 @ X3)|~((cF @ X1 @ X3)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, (cF @ epred2_0 @ esk2_0), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_14, negated_conjecture, ![X1:a > $o, X3:a]:(((cF @ epred1_0 @ X3)|~((epred2_0 @ (esk1_2 @ X1 @ epred1_0)))|~((cF @ X1 @ X3)))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10, c_0_11])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_15, negated_conjecture, ![X1:a > $o]:(((epred2_0 @ (esk1_2 @ epred2_0 @ X1))|(cF @ X1 @ esk2_0))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12, c_0_13])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_16, negated_conjecture, ![X3:a]:(((cF @ epred1_0 @ esk2_0)|(cF @ epred1_0 @ X3)|~((cF @ epred2_0 @ X3)))), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14, c_0_15])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_17, negated_conjecture, (cF @ epred1_0 @ esk2_0), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16, c_0_13])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_18, negated_conjecture, ~((epred1_0 @ esk2_0)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.25/0.33  thf(c_0_19, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_17]), c_0_18]), ['proof']).
% 0.25/0.33  % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.25/0.33  % Parsed axioms                        : 3
% 0.25/0.33  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Initial clauses                      : 11
% 0.25/0.33  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 0.25/0.33  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 9
% 0.25/0.33  % Processed clauses                    : 16
% 0.25/0.33  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % ...subsumed                          : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % ...remaining for further processing  : 15
% 0.25/0.33  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % Generated clauses                    : 13
% 0.25/0.33  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.25/0.33  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % Paramodulations                      : 13
% 0.25/0.33  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.25/0.33  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33  % Current number of processed clauses  : 14
% 0.25/0.33  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.25/0.33  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.33  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.25/0.33  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 10
% 0.25/0.33  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.33  % ...number of literals in the above   : 8
% 0.25/0.33  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 23
% 0.25/0.33  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% 0.25/0.33  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 0.25/0.33  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/0.33  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.25/0.33  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/0.33  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1219
% 0.25/0.33  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 361
% 0.25/0.33  
% 0.25/0.33  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.33  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.33  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.33  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.25/0.33  
% 0.25/0.33  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.33  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.33  % Total time               : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.33  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.33  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------