↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV772-1 : 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 : n013.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 02:59:55 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.11s 0.45s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    9 (   9 unt;   0 nHn;   5 RR)
%            Number of literals    :    9 (   8 equ;   4 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   12 (  12 usr;   6 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (   4 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A,v_B,v_X),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent)) != c_Set_Oinsert(v_X,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_self__append__conv2_1,axiom,
    X1 = c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(X2),X1,X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_self__append__conv2_1) ).

cnf(cls_knows__Spy__Says_0,axiom,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(X1,X2,X3),X4,tc_Event_Oevent)) = c_Set_Oinsert(X3,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,X4),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_knows__Spy__Says_0) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A,v_B,v_X),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent)) != c_Set_Oinsert(v_X,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A,v_B,v_X),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent)) != c_Set_Oinsert(v_X,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)),tc_Message_Omsg),
    c_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    X1 = c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(X2),X1,X2),
    cls_self__append__conv2_1 ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A,v_B,v_X),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent),tc_Event_Oevent)) != c_Set_Oinsert(v_X,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(X1,X2,X3),X4,tc_Event_Oevent)) = c_Set_Oinsert(X3,c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,X4),tc_Message_Omsg),
    cls_knows__Spy__Says_0 ).

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
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWV772-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:24:06 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41  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
% 0.11/0.45  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 444358 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.11/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.45  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.45  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.45  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with pid 444368 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Result found by U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN
% 0.11/0.45  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.45  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.45  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.45  % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45  % Preprocessing time       : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.45  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.11/0.45  
% 0.11/0.45  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.45  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.11/0.45  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.45  % Parsed axioms                        : 450
% 0.11/0.45  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Initial clauses                      : 450
% 0.11/0.45  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.11/0.45  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 449
% 0.11/0.45  % Processed clauses                    : 145
% 0.11/0.45  % ...of these trivial                  : 17
% 0.11/0.45  % ...subsumed                          : 15
% 0.11/0.45  % ...remaining for further processing  : 113
% 0.11/0.45  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.11/0.45  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.11/0.45  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.11/0.45  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Total rewrite steps                  : 19
% 0.11/0.45  % ...of those cached                   : 7
% 0.11/0.45  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45  % Current number of processed clauses  : 111
% 0.11/0.45  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 52
% 0.11/0.45  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.45  %    Negative unit clauses             : 8
% 0.11/0.45  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 51
% 0.11/0.45  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 305
% 0.11/0.45  % ...number of literals in the above   : 742
% 0.11/0.45  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.11/0.45  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1122
% 0.11/0.45  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 947
% 0.11/0.45  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 10
% 0.11/0.45  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 109
% 0.11/0.45  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 8
% 0.11/0.45  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.11/0.45  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.11/0.45  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 11487
% 0.11/0.45  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 698
% 0.11/0.45  
% 0.11/0.45  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.45  % User time                : 0.010 s
% 0.11/0.45  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.11/0.45  % Total time               : 0.018 s
% 0.11/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 4424 pages
% 0.11/0.45  
% 0.11/0.45  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.45  % User time                : 0.039 s
% 0.11/0.45  % System time              : 0.021 s
% 0.11/0.45  % Total time               : 0.060 s
% 0.11/0.45  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.11/0.45  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------