↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV264-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n006.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 02:54:08 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   6 unt;   0 nHn;   9 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   12 (   0 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    9 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Message_Oparts_OFst_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair(X1,X2),c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg)
    | c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oparts_OFst_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_in(v_X,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair(v_X,v_Y),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair(X1,X2),c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg)
    | c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Oparts_OFst_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_in(v_X,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair(X1,X2),c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg)
    | c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X3),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair(v_X,v_Y),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    cls_conjecture_2 ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_in(v_X,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWV264-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:36:42 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.13/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40  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
% 0.13/0.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % new_bool_3 with pid 2447218 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2447223 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.41  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Initial clauses                      : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % Processed clauses                    : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 3
% 0.13/0.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Generated clauses                    : 1
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Paramodulations                      : 1
% 0.13/0.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 3
% 0.13/0.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.13/0.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.13/0.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 1
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.13/0.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 85
% 0.13/0.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 5
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.41  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.13/0.41  
% 0.13/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.13/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------