↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV875-1 : 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 : n010.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 03:00:06 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 10.66s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :    6 (   6 unt;   0 nHn;   4 RR)
%            Number of literals    :    6 (   0 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    2 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_Natural_Oevalc(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP),v_x),v_x)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_evalc_OSkip_0,axiom,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_Natural_Oevalc(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP),X1),X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_evalc_OSkip_0) ).

cnf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_Natural_Oevalc(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP),v_x),v_x)),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_Natural_Oevalc(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP),v_x),v_x)),
    c_0_2 ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_Natural_Oevalc(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP),X1),X1)),
    cls_evalc_OSkip_0 ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : SWV875-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/10.47  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.19/10.47  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/10.47  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/10.47  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/10.47  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/10.47  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/10.47  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.19/10.47  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:30:06 UTC 2026
% 0.19/10.48  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/10.48  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/10.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/10.54  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
% 0.24/10.66  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/10.66  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/10.66  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % new_bool_3 with pid 573819 completed with status 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/10.66  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/10.66  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/10.66  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/10.66  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/10.66  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % SubtermCWHack with pid 573822 completed with status 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/10.66  % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/10.66  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/10.66  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/10.66  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/10.66  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/10.66  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/10.66  % Preprocessing time       : 0.012 s
% 0.24/10.66  
% 0.24/10.66  % Proof found!
% 0.24/10.66  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/10.66  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/10.66  % Parsed axioms                        : 1108
% 0.24/10.66  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 558
% 0.24/10.66  % Initial clauses                      : 550
% 0.24/10.66  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 550
% 0.24/10.66  % Processed clauses                    : 29
% 0.24/10.66  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % ...subsumed                          : 6
% 0.24/10.66  % ...remaining for further processing  : 22
% 0.24/10.66  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Generated clauses                    : 1
% 0.24/10.66  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.24/10.66  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.24/10.66  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.24/10.66  % Current number of processed clauses  : 22
% 0.24/10.66  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 13
% 0.24/10.66  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/10.66  %    Negative unit clauses             : 4
% 0.24/10.66  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 5
% 0.24/10.66  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 521
% 0.24/10.66  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1206
% 0.24/10.66  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.24/10.66  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.24/10.66  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.24/10.66  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.24/10.66  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.24/10.66  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 31058
% 0.24/10.66  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 3573
% 0.24/10.66  
% 0.24/10.66  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/10.66  % User time                : 0.020 s
% 0.24/10.66  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.24/10.66  % Total time               : 0.030 s
% 0.24/10.66  % Maximum resident set size: 5324 pages
% 0.24/10.66  
% 0.24/10.66  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/10.66  % User time                : 0.086 s
% 0.24/10.66  % System time              : 0.019 s
% 0.24/10.66  % Total time               : 0.105 s
% 0.24/10.66  % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.24/10.66  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------