↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV910-1 : 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 : n012.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 03:07:07 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.07s 0.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.07s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   12 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;   4 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   12 (   5 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   14 (  14 usr;   6 con; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   25 (  17 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_empty__def_0,axiom,
    c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(X1,tc_bool)) = c_Collect(c_COMBK(c_False,tc_bool,X1),X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_empty__def_0) ).

cnf(cls_Collect__def_0,axiom,
    c_Collect(X1,X2) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Collect__def_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(v_G,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(X1,v_c,X2,t_a)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a),tc_bool))),t_a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).

cnf(cls_falseE_0,axiom,
    c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(c_COMBK(c_COMBK(c_False,tc_bool,tc_Com_Ostate),tc_fun(tc_Com_Ostate,tc_bool),X2),X3,X4,X2)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2),tc_bool))),X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_falseE_0) ).

cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
    c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(X1,tc_bool)) = c_Collect(c_COMBK(c_False,tc_bool,X1),X1),
    cls_empty__def_0 ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    c_Collect(X1,X2) = X1,
    cls_Collect__def_0 ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(v_G,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(X1,v_c,X2,t_a)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a),tc_bool))),t_a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(c_COMBK(c_COMBK(c_False,tc_bool,tc_Com_Ostate),tc_fun(tc_Com_Ostate,tc_bool),X2),X3,X4,X2)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2),tc_bool))),X2),
    cls_falseE_0 ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(X1,tc_bool)) = c_COMBK(c_False,tc_bool,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(v_G,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(X1,v_c,X2,t_a)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(t_a),tc_bool))),t_a),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ohoare__derivs(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Set_Oinsert(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2)),c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple_Otriple(c_COMBK(c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Com_Ostate,tc_bool)),tc_fun(tc_Com_Ostate,tc_bool),X2),X3,X4,X2)),c_Orderings_Obot__class_Obot(tc_fun(tc_Hoare__Mirabelle_Otriple(X2),tc_bool))),X2),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01  % Problem  : SWV910-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.02  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.05/0.31  % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.05/0.31  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.05/0.31  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.05/0.31  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.05/0.31  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.05/0.31  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.05/0.31  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.05/0.31  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:31:23 UTC 2026
% 0.05/0.31  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.05/0.31  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.33  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.07/0.33  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
% 0.07/0.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.07/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2082376 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.07/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.07/0.41  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.07/0.41  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.07/0.41  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 2082386 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Result found by G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.07/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.07/0.41  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.07/0.41  % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.07/0.41  % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.005 s
% 0.07/0.41  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.07/0.41  
% 0.07/0.41  % Proof found!
% 0.07/0.41  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.07/0.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.07/0.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 498
% 0.07/0.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Initial clauses                      : 498
% 0.07/0.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 0.07/0.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 496
% 0.07/0.41  % Processed clauses                    : 1097
% 0.07/0.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 31
% 0.07/0.41  % ...subsumed                          : 274
% 0.07/0.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 792
% 0.07/0.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 58
% 0.07/0.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 13
% 0.07/0.41  % Generated clauses                    : 1573
% 0.07/0.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 836
% 0.07/0.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Paramodulations                      : 1507
% 0.07/0.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 66
% 0.07/0.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 919
% 0.07/0.41  % ...of those cached                   : 678
% 0.07/0.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.07/0.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 369
% 0.07/0.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 151
% 0.07/0.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.07/0.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 16
% 0.07/0.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 197
% 0.07/0.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 642
% 0.07/0.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1360
% 0.07/0.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 422
% 0.07/0.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 23162
% 0.07/0.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 20198
% 0.07/0.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 180
% 0.07/0.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 405
% 0.07/0.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 609
% 0.07/0.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 91
% 0.07/0.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.07/0.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 45125
% 0.07/0.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 851
% 0.07/0.41  
% 0.07/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.41  % User time                : 0.053 s
% 0.07/0.41  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.07/0.41  % Total time               : 0.059 s
% 0.07/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4548 pages
% 0.07/0.41  
% 0.07/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.41  % User time                : 0.256 s
% 0.07/0.41  % System time              : 0.025 s
% 0.07/0.41  % Total time               : 0.282 s
% 0.07/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.07/0.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------