↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWC255+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 02:43:40 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.11s 0.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   12 (   5 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   62 (  10 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   18 (   5 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   75 (  25   ~;  24   |;  14   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;  12  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   16 (   6 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   5 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (   0 sgn  12   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
    ! [X1] :
      ( ssList(X1)
     => ! [X2] :
          ( ssList(X2)
         => ! [X3] :
              ( ssList(X3)
             => ! [X4] :
                  ( ssList(X4)
                 => ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
                        | ~ neq(X2,nil) )
                      & ( singletonP(X1)
                        | ~ singletonP(X3)
                        | ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
                    | X1 != X3
                    | X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1] :
        ( ssList(X1)
       => ! [X2] :
            ( ssList(X2)
           => ! [X3] :
                ( ssList(X3)
               => ! [X4] :
                    ( ssList(X4)
                   => ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
                          | ~ neq(X2,nil) )
                        & ( singletonP(X1)
                          | ~ singletonP(X3)
                          | ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
                      | X1 != X3
                      | X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co1]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1] :
        ( ssList(X1)
       => ! [X2] :
            ( ssList(X2)
           => ! [X3] :
                ( ssList(X3)
               => ! [X4] :
                    ( ssList(X4)
                   => ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
                          | ~ neq(X2,nil) )
                        & ( singletonP(X1)
                          | ~ singletonP(X3)
                          | ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
                      | X1 != X3
                      | X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( ~ singletonP(esk1_0)
      | ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
    & ( ~ singletonP(esk1_0)
      | neq(esk2_0,nil) )
    & ( singletonP(esk3_0)
      | ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
    & ( singletonP(esk3_0)
      | neq(esk2_0,nil) )
    & ( neq(esk2_0,nil)
      | ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
    & ( neq(esk2_0,nil)
      | neq(esk2_0,nil) )
    & esk1_0 = esk3_0
    & esk2_0 = esk4_0
    & ssList(esk4_0)
    & ssList(esk3_0)
    & ssList(esk2_0)
    & ssList(esk1_0) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( neq(esk2_0,nil)
    | neq(esk2_0,nil) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
    | singletonP(esk3_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    esk1_0 = esk3_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    esk2_0 = esk4_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    neq(esk2_0,nil),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ singletonP(esk1_0)
    | ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    singletonP(esk1_0),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,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_7]),c_0_8])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWC255+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:09:20 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42  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
% 0.11/0.44  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % new_bool_3 with pid 2675104 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.11/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.44  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.44  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2675107 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.44  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.44  % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44  
% 0.11/0.44  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.44  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.44  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.44  % Parsed axioms                        : 96
% 0.11/0.44  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 75
% 0.11/0.44  % Initial clauses                      : 43
% 0.11/0.44  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 43
% 0.11/0.44  % Processed clauses                    : 16
% 0.11/0.44  % ...of these trivial                  : 2
% 0.11/0.44  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % ...remaining for further processing  : 13
% 0.11/0.44  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.11/0.44  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Total rewrite steps                  : 13
% 0.11/0.44  % ...of those cached                   : 7
% 0.11/0.44  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44  % Current number of processed clauses  : 11
% 0.11/0.44  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 9
% 0.11/0.44  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.44  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.11/0.44  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 27
% 0.11/0.44  % ...number of literals in the above   : 99
% 0.11/0.44  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.11/0.44  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.11/0.44  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.11/0.44  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.11/0.44  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.11/0.44  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3920
% 0.11/0.44  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1324
% 0.11/0.44  
% 0.11/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.44  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.11/0.44  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 4012 pages
% 0.11/0.44  
% 0.11/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.44  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.44  % Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.11/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.44  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------