↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV675-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n004.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 02:59:44 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.41s 0.67s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.41s
% 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 (   6 equ;   6 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (   3 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_le__0__eq_0,axiom,
    ( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat)
    | X1 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_le__0__eq_0) ).

cnf(cls_nat_Osimps_I3_J_0,axiom,
    c_Suc(X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_nat_Osimps_I3_J_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    c_lessequals(c_Suc(v_y),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat)
    | X1 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_le__0__eq_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    c_Suc(X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_nat_Osimps_I3_J_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat)
    | X1 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat) ),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    c_lessequals(c_Suc(v_y),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat),
    cls_conjecture_0 ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    c_Suc(X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
    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
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : SWV675-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.19/0.46  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:18:35 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.47  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.54  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
% 0.41/0.67  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.41/0.67  % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/0.67  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % new_bool_1 with pid 2794723 completed with status 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.41/0.67  % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/0.67  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.41/0.67  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.41/0.67  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.41/0.67  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_1 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2794725 completed with status 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.41/0.67  % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/0.67  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.41/0.67  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.41/0.67  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.41/0.67  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.41/0.67  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.67  % Preprocessing time       : 0.014 s
% 0.41/0.67  
% 0.41/0.67  % Proof found!
% 0.41/0.67  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.41/0.67  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.41/0.67  % Parsed axioms                        : 1389
% 0.41/0.67  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 634
% 0.41/0.67  % Initial clauses                      : 755
% 0.41/0.67  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 755
% 0.41/0.67  % Processed clauses                    : 103
% 0.41/0.67  % ...of these trivial                  : 13
% 0.41/0.67  % ...subsumed                          : 15
% 0.41/0.67  % ...remaining for further processing  : 75
% 0.41/0.67  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Generated clauses                    : 69
% 0.41/0.67  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 30
% 0.41/0.67  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Paramodulations                      : 66
% 0.41/0.67  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.41/0.67  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.41/0.67  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Total rewrite steps                  : 55
% 0.41/0.67  % ...of those cached                   : 29
% 0.41/0.67  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.41/0.67  % Current number of processed clauses  : 75
% 0.41/0.67  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 42
% 0.41/0.67  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.41/0.67  %    Negative unit clauses             : 9
% 0.41/0.67  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 24
% 0.41/0.67  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 682
% 0.41/0.67  % ...number of literals in the above   : 2452
% 0.41/0.67  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 90
% 0.41/0.67  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 85
% 0.41/0.67  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 4
% 0.41/0.67  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.41/0.67  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 10
% 0.41/0.67  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.41/0.67  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 40001
% 0.41/0.67  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 3748
% 0.41/0.67  
% 0.41/0.67  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/0.67  % User time                : 0.033 s
% 0.41/0.67  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.41/0.67  % Total time               : 0.041 s
% 0.41/0.67  % Maximum resident set size: 5620 pages
% 0.41/0.67  
% 0.41/0.67  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/0.67  % User time                : 0.118 s
% 0.41/0.67  % System time              : 0.020 s
% 0.41/0.67  % Total time               : 0.138 s
% 0.41/0.67  % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.41/0.67  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------