↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV147+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 : n011.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 02:53:49 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.24s 5.63s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   5 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   13 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   12 (   8   ~;   0   |;   1   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    3 (   0 sgn   2   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(gauss_array_0017,conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(tptp_float_0_001,tptp_float_0_001)
   => leq(n0,s_worst7) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',gauss_array_0017) ).

fof(reflexivity_leq,axiom,
    ! [X1] : leq(X1,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',reflexivity_leq) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ~ leq(tptp_float_0_001,tptp_float_0_001)
     => leq(n0,s_worst7) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[gauss_array_0017]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ~ leq(tptp_float_0_001,tptp_float_0_001)
     => leq(n0,s_worst7) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ leq(n0,s_worst7)
    & ~ leq(tptp_float_0_001,tptp_float_0_001) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])]) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X28] : leq(X28,X28),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_leq]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ leq(tptp_float_0_001,tptp_float_0_001),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    leq(X1,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : SWV147+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/5.48  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.18/5.48  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/5.48  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/5.48  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/5.48  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/5.48  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/5.48  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/5.48  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:33:00 UTC 2026
% 0.18/5.48  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/5.48  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/5.55  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/5.55  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
% 0.24/5.63  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/5.63  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % new_bool_1 with pid 1469650 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/5.63  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.63  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.63  % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.63  % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.63  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1469653 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/5.63  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.63  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.63  % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.63  % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.63  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.63  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.63  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.24/5.63  
% 0.24/5.63  % Proof found!
% 0.24/5.63  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/5.63  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/5.63  % Parsed axioms                        : 85
% 0.24/5.63  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 71
% 0.24/5.63  % Initial clauses                      : 17
% 0.24/5.63  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 17
% 0.24/5.63  % Processed clauses                    : 3
% 0.24/5.63  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % ...remaining for further processing  : 2
% 0.24/5.63  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.24/5.63  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.24/5.63  % Current number of processed clauses  : 2
% 0.24/5.63  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.24/5.63  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/5.63  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.24/5.63  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 14
% 0.24/5.63  % ...number of literals in the above   : 31
% 0.24/5.63  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.24/5.63  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1927
% 0.24/5.63  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 619
% 0.24/5.63  
% 0.24/5.63  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.63  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.24/5.63  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.24/5.63  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.24/5.63  % Maximum resident set size: 3736 pages
% 0.24/5.63  
% 0.24/5.63  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.63  % User time                : 0.012 s
% 0.24/5.63  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.24/5.63  % Total time               : 0.021 s
% 0.24/5.63  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/5.63  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------