↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV045+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n019.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 02:53:35 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.25s 0.57s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    7 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   16 (   3 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   12 (   3   ~;   0   |;   7   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   2 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   11 (  11 usr;   8 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(cl5_nebula_norm_0007,conjecture,
    ( ( leq(pv25,minus(n5,n1))
      & leq(n0,pv25)
      & pv76 = sum(n0,minus(n135300,n1),a_select3(q,pv77,pv25)) )
   => true ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cl5_nebula_norm_0007) ).

fof(ttrue,axiom,
    true,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',ttrue) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( leq(pv25,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv25)
        & pv76 = sum(n0,minus(n135300,n1),a_select3(q,pv77,pv25)) )
     => true ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_norm_0007]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ true
    & leq(pv25,minus(n5,n1))
    & leq(n0,pv25)
    & pv76 = sum(n0,minus(n135300,n1),a_select3(q,pv77,pv25)) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ true,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    true,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ttrue]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : SWV045+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.43  % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.43  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.43  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.43  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.43  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.43  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:28:50 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.44  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/0.44  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.50  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.50  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
% 0.25/0.57  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.57  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.57  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % new_bool_1 with pid 2139899 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.25/0.57  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.57  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.57  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.57  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.57  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.57  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2139902 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.57  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.57  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.57  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.57  % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.57  % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.57  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.57  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.57  % Preprocessing time       : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.57  
% 0.25/0.57  % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.57  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.57  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.57  % Parsed axioms                        : 92
% 0.25/0.57  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 22
% 0.25/0.57  % Initial clauses                      : 76
% 0.25/0.57  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 76
% 0.25/0.57  % Processed clauses                    : 2
% 0.25/0.57  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % ...remaining for further processing  : 1
% 0.25/0.57  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.25/0.57  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.25/0.57  % Current number of processed clauses  : 1
% 0.25/0.57  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.25/0.57  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.25/0.57  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 74
% 0.25/0.57  % ...number of literals in the above   : 119
% 0.25/0.57  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/0.57  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3538
% 0.25/0.57  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 585
% 0.25/0.57  
% 0.25/0.57  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.57  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.57  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.57  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.57  % Maximum resident set size: 4252 pages
% 0.25/0.57  
% 0.25/0.57  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.57  % User time                : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.57  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.57  % Total time               : 0.022 s
% 0.25/0.57  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.57  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------