↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SWV963-1 : 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 03:00:15 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.52s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   12 (   8 unt;   0 nHn;  12 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   19 (   0 equ;  11 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   2 prp; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   12 (  12 usr;   6 con; 0-5 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    4 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,X1)
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),X1),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____))
    | v_thesis____ ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_CHAINED_1,axiom,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____,v_P,v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_h_Ha____)),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_1) ).

cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
    c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____,v_P,v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_h_Ha____)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,X1)
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),X1),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____))
    | v_thesis____ ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,X1)
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),X1),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____))
    | v_thesis____ ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ v_thesis____,
    c_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,X1)
    | ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),X1),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)) ),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P,tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)),tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))),v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____,v_P,v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_h_Ha____)),v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)),
    cls_CHAINED_1 ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P,v_h_Ha____,v_E____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____,v_P,v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____,v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____,v_h_Ha____)),
    cls_CHAINED_0 ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SWV963-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:34:06 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41  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
% 0.21/0.52  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % sh5l with pid 459183 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Result found by sh5l
% 0.21/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.52  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.52  % Search class: FGUSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.52  % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % SubtermCWHack with pid 459186 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.52  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.52  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.52  % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.52  % Search class: FGUSM-FSLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.52  % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.52  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.52  % Preprocessing time       : 0.009 s
% 0.21/0.52  
% 0.21/0.52  % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.52  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.52  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.52  % Parsed axioms                        : 464
% 0.21/0.52  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 25
% 0.21/0.52  % Initial clauses                      : 439
% 0.21/0.52  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 439
% 0.21/0.52  % Processed clauses                    : 479
% 0.21/0.52  % ...of these trivial                  : 6
% 0.21/0.52  % ...subsumed                          : 137
% 0.21/0.52  % ...remaining for further processing  : 336
% 0.21/0.52  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 0.21/0.52  % Generated clauses                    : 797
% 0.21/0.52  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 453
% 0.21/0.52  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Paramodulations                      : 758
% 0.21/0.52  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Equation resolutions                 : 39
% 0.21/0.52  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Total rewrite steps                  : 407
% 0.21/0.52  % ...of those cached                   : 259
% 0.21/0.52  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.21/0.52  % Current number of processed clauses  : 332
% 0.21/0.52  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 117
% 0.21/0.52  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.52  %    Negative unit clauses             : 86
% 0.21/0.52  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 129
% 0.21/0.52  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 409
% 0.21/0.52  % ...number of literals in the above   : 890
% 0.21/0.52  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.21/0.52  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11250
% 0.21/0.52  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7484
% 0.21/0.52  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 51
% 0.21/0.52  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4325
% 0.21/0.52  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 492
% 0.21/0.52  % BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 0.21/0.52  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/0.52  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 63717
% 0.21/0.52  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1218
% 0.21/0.52  
% 0.21/0.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.52  % User time                : 0.049 s
% 0.21/0.52  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.21/0.52  % Total time               : 0.054 s
% 0.21/0.52  % Maximum resident set size: 4792 pages
% 0.21/0.52  
% 0.21/0.52  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.52  % User time                : 0.092 s
% 0.21/0.52  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.52  % Total time               : 0.100 s
% 0.21/0.52  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.21/0.52  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------