↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV861-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 03:00:05 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 1.29s 0.80s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 1.29s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   19 (  11 unt;   0 nHn;  19 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   33 (   0 equ;  18 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   11 (  11 usr;  10 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_d,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,X1),X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_6) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,v_Z),v_s_H)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
    c_Natural_Oevaln(v_d,v_s1,v_n,v_s_H),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_c,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_5) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
    c_Natural_Oevaln(v_c,v_s,v_n,v_s1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,v_Z),v_s)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_d,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,X1),X2)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,v_Z),v_s_H)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_d,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,X1),X2)) ),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    c_Natural_Oevaln(v_d,v_s1,v_n,v_s_H),
    cls_conjecture_2 ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_c,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X2)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,v_Z),v_s_H)),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),v_s1))
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_R,X1),v_s_H)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,X1),X3))
    | ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_c,X3,v_n,X2)
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),X2)) ),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    c_Natural_Oevaln(v_c,v_s,v_n,v_s1),
    cls_conjecture_1 ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,v_Z),v_s1)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,X1),v_s))
    | hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_Q,X1),v_s1)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(v_P,v_Z),v_s)),
    cls_conjecture_0 ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWV861-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/0.45  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:28:22 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.45  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.45  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.54  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
% 1.29/0.80  % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.29/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.29/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 451937 completed with status 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 1.29/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.29/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.29/0.80  % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.29/0.80  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 1.29/0.80  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with pid 451948 completed with status 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Result found by G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I
% 1.29/0.80  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 1.29/0.80  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.29/0.80  % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.29/0.80  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 1.29/0.80  % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting U----_206b_01_C11_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Starting G-E--_208_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 1.29/0.80  % Preprocessing time       : 0.008 s
% 1.29/0.80  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 1.29/0.80  
% 1.29/0.80  % Proof found!
% 1.29/0.80  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 1.29/0.80  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.29/0.80  % Parsed axioms                        : 606
% 1.29/0.80  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Initial clauses                      : 606
% 1.29/0.80  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 1.29/0.80  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 604
% 1.29/0.80  % Processed clauses                    : 687
% 1.29/0.80  % ...of these trivial                  : 24
% 1.29/0.80  % ...subsumed                          : 103
% 1.29/0.80  % ...remaining for further processing  : 560
% 1.29/0.80  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 1.29/0.80  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Backward-subsumed                    : 1
% 1.29/0.80  % Backward-rewritten                   : 12
% 1.29/0.80  % Generated clauses                    : 26
% 1.29/0.80  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 27
% 1.29/0.80  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 3
% 1.29/0.80  % Paramodulations                      : 23
% 1.29/0.80  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % NegExts                              : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Equation resolutions                 : 3
% 1.29/0.80  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Total rewrite steps                  : 227
% 1.29/0.80  % ...of those cached                   : 155
% 1.29/0.80  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 1.29/0.80  % Current number of processed clauses  : 74
% 1.29/0.80  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 34
% 1.29/0.80  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.29/0.80  %    Negative unit clauses             : 13
% 1.29/0.80  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 27
% 1.29/0.80  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 415
% 1.29/0.80  % ...number of literals in the above   : 943
% 1.29/0.80  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Current number of archived clauses   : 486
% 1.29/0.80  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 27488
% 1.29/0.80  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22393
% 1.29/0.80  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 86
% 1.29/0.80  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 582
% 1.29/0.80  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 9
% 1.29/0.80  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 181
% 1.29/0.80  % BW rewrite match successes           : 26
% 1.29/0.80  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 1.29/0.80  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 28871
% 1.29/0.80  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1142
% 1.29/0.80  
% 1.29/0.80  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.29/0.80  % User time                : 0.101 s
% 1.29/0.80  % System time              : 0.016 s
% 1.29/0.80  % Total time               : 0.117 s
% 1.29/0.80  % Maximum resident set size: 4628 pages
% 1.29/0.80  
% 1.29/0.80  % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.29/0.80  % User time                : 0.458 s
% 1.29/0.80  % System time              : 0.059 s
% 1.29/0.80  % Total time               : 0.517 s
% 1.29/0.80  % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 1.29/0.80  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------