↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV074+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 : n010.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 02:53:39 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.11s 0.43s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    6 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   20 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    8 (   3 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   17 (   3   ~;   0   |;  12   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   2 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   6 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(cl5_nebula_array_0015,conjecture,
    ( ( leq(pv36,minus(n135300,n1))
      & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      & leq(n0,pv36)
      & leq(n0,pv31) )
   => ( leq(pv36,minus(n135300,n1))
      & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      & leq(n0,pv36)
      & leq(n0,pv31) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cl5_nebula_array_0015) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( leq(pv36,minus(n135300,n1))
        & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv36)
        & leq(n0,pv31) )
     => ( leq(pv36,minus(n135300,n1))
        & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv36)
        & leq(n0,pv31) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_array_0015]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ $true,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ $true,
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWV074+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:30:10 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41  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
% 0.11/0.43  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % new_bool_1 with pid 480723 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.11/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.43  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.43  % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % SubtermCWHack with pid 480727 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.43  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.43  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.43  % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.43  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.43  
% 0.11/0.43  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.43  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.43  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.43  % Parsed axioms                        : 92
% 0.11/0.43  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 24
% 0.11/0.43  % Initial clauses                      : 71
% 0.11/0.43  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 71
% 0.11/0.43  % Processed clauses                    : 1
% 0.11/0.43  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % ...remaining for further processing  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43  % Current number of processed clauses  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.43  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 70
% 0.11/0.43  % ...number of literals in the above   : 115
% 0.11/0.43  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.11/0.43  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3434
% 0.11/0.43  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 570
% 0.11/0.43  
% 0.11/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.43  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.43  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.43  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 0.11/0.43  
% 0.11/0.43  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.43  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.43  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.43  % Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.11/0.43  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.11/0.43  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------