↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYN386+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n004.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 03:23:55 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.12s 0.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (   7 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   48 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   10 (   3 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   49 (  15   ~;  11   |;  11   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;  12  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   18 (   5 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   68 (   6 sgn  32   !;  12   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(x2138,conjecture,
    ( ( ! [X3] :
        ? [X6] :
        ! [X7,X8] :
          ( big_d(X7,X8,X6)
         => ! [X2,X9] :
              ( ( big_f(X8,X9)
                & big_f(X7,X2) )
             => big_d(X2,X9,X3) ) )
      & ? [X1] :
        ! [X3] :
        ? [X4] :
        ! [X5] :
          ( big_s(X4,X5)
         => big_d(X5,X1,X3) )
      & ! [X1] :
        ? [X2] : big_f(X1,X2) )
   => ? [X2] :
      ! [X3] :
      ? [X10] :
      ! [X5] :
        ( big_s(X10,X5)
       => ! [X9] :
            ( big_f(X5,X9)
           => big_d(X9,X2,X3) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',x2138) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( ! [X3] :
          ? [X6] :
          ! [X7,X8] :
            ( big_d(X7,X8,X6)
           => ! [X2,X9] :
                ( ( big_f(X8,X9)
                  & big_f(X7,X2) )
               => big_d(X2,X9,X3) ) )
        & ? [X1] :
          ! [X3] :
          ? [X4] :
          ! [X5] :
            ( big_s(X4,X5)
           => big_d(X5,X1,X3) )
        & ! [X1] :
          ? [X2] : big_f(X1,X2) )
     => ? [X2] :
        ! [X3] :
        ? [X10] :
        ! [X5] :
          ( big_s(X10,X5)
         => ! [X9] :
              ( big_f(X5,X9)
             => big_d(X9,X2,X3) ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[x2138]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X11,X14,X16,X17,X19,X20,X21,X22,X23,X25] :
      ( ~ big_d(esk7_2(X23,X25),X23,esk5_1(X23))
      & big_f(esk6_2(X23,X25),esk7_2(X23,X25))
      & big_s(X25,esk6_2(X23,X25))
      & ( big_d(X21,X22,X17)
        | ~ big_f(X20,X22)
        | ~ big_f(X19,X21)
        | ~ big_d(X19,X20,esk4_1(X17)) )
      & ( big_d(X16,esk2_0,X14)
        | ~ big_s(esk3_1(X14),X16) )
      & big_f(X11,esk1_1(X11)) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_s(esk3_1(X1),X2)
    | big_d(X2,esk2_0,X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    big_s(X1,esk6_2(X2,X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(X2,X5)
    | ~ big_f(X1,X4)
    | ~ big_d(X1,X2,esk4_1(X3))
    | big_d(X4,X5,X3) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    big_d(esk6_2(X1,esk3_1(X2)),esk2_0,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(esk2_0,X2)
    | ~ big_f(esk6_2(X4,esk3_1(esk4_1(X3))),X1)
    | big_d(X1,X2,X3) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    big_f(esk6_2(X1,X2),esk7_2(X1,X2)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ big_d(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1,esk5_1(X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(esk2_0,X3)
    | big_d(esk7_2(X1,esk3_1(esk4_1(X2))),X3,X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ~ big_f(esk2_0,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    big_f(X1,esk1_1(X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SYN386+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.35  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.35  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.35  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.07/0.35  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:52:38 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.07/0.35  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.40  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.40  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
% 0.12/0.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % new_bool_3 with pid 2967907 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.41  % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2967912 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.41  % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.41  
% 0.12/0.41  % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.41  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.12/0.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Initial clauses                      : 6
% 0.12/0.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 6
% 0.12/0.41  % Processed clauses                    : 10
% 0.12/0.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 10
% 0.12/0.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 0.12/0.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Generated clauses                    : 7
% 0.12/0.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.12/0.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Paramodulations                      : 7
% 0.12/0.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 8
% 0.12/0.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 4
% 0.12/0.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.12/0.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.12/0.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.12/0.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 6
% 0.12/0.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.12/0.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.12/0.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.12/0.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 705
% 0.12/0.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 253
% 0.12/0.41  
% 0.12/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.41  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.41  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.41  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.12/0.41  
% 0.12/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.41  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.41  % System time              : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.41  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------