↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYN251-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n001.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 03:23:29 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.16s 5.47s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   12 (   9 unt;   0 nHn;  12 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   18 (   0 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   10 (   4 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rule_015,axiom,
    ( ~ m0(X2,X2,X1)
    | ~ l0(X3)
    | m1(X1,X2,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_015) ).

cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
    ~ m1(e,b,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).

cnf(axiom_31,axiom,
    m0(b,b,e),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_31) ).

cnf(axiom_20,axiom,
    l0(a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_20) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ~ m0(X2,X2,X1)
    | ~ l0(X3)
    | m1(X1,X2,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_015]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ m1(e,b,b),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_this]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ m0(X2,X2,X1)
    | ~ l0(X3)
    | m1(X1,X2,X2) ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    m0(b,b,e),
    axiom_31 ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ~ m1(e,b,b),
    c_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    l0(a),
    axiom_20 ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ~ l0(X1),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SYN251-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/5.39  % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.12/5.39  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/5.39  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/5.39  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/5.39  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/5.39  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/5.39  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.12/5.39  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:53:05 UTC 2026
% 0.12/5.39  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.12/5.39  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/5.43  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/5.44  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
% 0.16/5.47  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % new_bool_3 with pid 2937013 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.47  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.47  % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.47  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2937016 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/5.47  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.47  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.47  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.47  % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.47  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.47  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.47  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.16/5.47  
% 0.16/5.47  % Proof found!
% 0.16/5.47  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/5.47  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/5.47  % Parsed axioms                        : 369
% 0.16/5.47  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 160
% 0.16/5.47  % Initial clauses                      : 209
% 0.16/5.47  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 5
% 0.16/5.47  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 204
% 0.16/5.47  % Processed clauses                    : 291
% 0.16/5.47  % ...of these trivial                  : 33
% 0.16/5.47  % ...subsumed                          : 5
% 0.16/5.47  % ...remaining for further processing  : 253
% 0.16/5.47  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Backward-subsumed                    : 22
% 0.16/5.47  % Backward-rewritten                   : 80
% 0.16/5.47  % Generated clauses                    : 272
% 0.16/5.47  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 168
% 0.16/5.47  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.16/5.47  % Paramodulations                      : 270
% 0.16/5.47  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Total rewrite steps                  : 265
% 0.16/5.47  % ...of those cached                   : 145
% 0.16/5.47  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.16/5.47  % Current number of processed clauses  : 149
% 0.16/5.47  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 99
% 0.16/5.47  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.16/5.47  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.16/5.47  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 48
% 0.16/5.47  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 64
% 0.16/5.47  % ...number of literals in the above   : 231
% 0.16/5.47  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Current number of archived clauses   : 104
% 0.16/5.47  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1630
% 0.16/5.47  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1487
% 0.16/5.47  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 17
% 0.16/5.47  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 245
% 0.16/5.47  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 144
% 0.16/5.47  % BW rewrite match successes           : 67
% 0.16/5.47  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.16/5.47  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 10526
% 0.16/5.47  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 1643
% 0.16/5.47  
% 0.16/5.47  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.47  % User time                : 0.012 s
% 0.16/5.47  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.16/5.47  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.16/5.47  % Maximum resident set size: 4216 pages
% 0.16/5.47  
% 0.16/5.47  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.47  % User time                : 0.020 s
% 0.16/5.47  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.16/5.47  % Total time               : 0.027 s
% 0.16/5.47  % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.16/5.47  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------