↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV077+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n001.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 0.14s 0.60s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   12 (   6 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   61 (  10 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   20 (   5 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   79 (  30   ~;  20   |;  20   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   9  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   11 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   2 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   5 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(cl5_nebula_array_0018,conjecture,
    ( ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      & leq(n0,pv31) )
   => ( ( n0 = pv40
       => true )
      & ( n0 != pv40
       => ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
          & leq(n0,pv31) ) )
      & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      & leq(n0,pv31) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cl5_nebula_array_0018) ).

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

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv31) )
     => ( ( n0 = pv40
         => true )
        & ( n0 != pv40
         => ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
            & leq(n0,pv31) ) )
        & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv31) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_array_0018]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv31) )
     => ( ( n0 = pv40
         => true )
        & ( n0 != pv40
         => ( leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
            & leq(n0,pv31) ) )
        & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
        & leq(n0,pv31) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | ~ true )
    & ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | n0 = pv40 )
    & ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | n0 != pv40
      | ~ true )
    & ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
      | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
      | n0 != pv40
      | n0 = pv40 )
    & leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
    & leq(n0,pv31) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
    | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
    | ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
    | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
    | ~ true ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1))
    | ~ leq(n0,pv31)
    | ~ true ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    true,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ttrue]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    leq(n0,pv31),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ~ leq(pv31,minus(n5,n1)),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SWV077+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.53  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.53  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.53  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.53  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.53  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.53  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.53  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.53  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:35:14 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.53  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.53  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.57  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.57  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
% 0.14/0.60  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2688262 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.14/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.60  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.60  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.60  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with pid 2688273 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Result found by G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I
% 0.14/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.60  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.60  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.60  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Starting G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.60  % Preprocessing time       : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.60  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.60  
% 0.14/0.60  % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.60  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.60  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.60  % Parsed axioms                        : 85
% 0.14/0.60  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Initial clauses                      : 198
% 0.14/0.60  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 3
% 0.14/0.60  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 195
% 0.14/0.60  % Processed clauses                    : 4
% 0.14/0.60  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % ...remaining for further processing  : 3
% 0.14/0.60  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.14/0.60  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.14/0.60  % Current number of processed clauses  : 3
% 0.14/0.60  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.14/0.60  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.60  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.14/0.60  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 191
% 0.14/0.60  % ...number of literals in the above   : 807
% 0.14/0.60  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.14/0.60  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.14/0.60  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 13175
% 0.14/0.60  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 2198
% 0.14/0.60  
% 0.14/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.60  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.60  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.60  % Total time               : 0.011 s
% 0.14/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 4248 pages
% 0.14/0.60  
% 0.14/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.60  % User time                : 0.025 s
% 0.14/0.60  % System time              : 0.015 s
% 0.14/0.60  % Total time               : 0.040 s
% 0.14/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.60  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------