↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYN969+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n007.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 03:30:59 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.09s 0.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   26 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   25 (   8   ~;   4   |;   5   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   8  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    8 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    1 (   1 usr;   1 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   10 (   0 sgn   8   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
    ! [X1] :
      ( ( r(X1)
        & ! [X2] :
            ( p(X2)
           => q(X2) ) )
     => ( ! [X3] :
            ( r(X3)
           => p(X3) )
       => q(X1) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1] :
        ( ( r(X1)
          & ! [X2] :
              ( p(X2)
             => q(X2) ) )
       => ( ! [X3] :
              ( r(X3)
             => p(X3) )
         => q(X1) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X5,X6] :
      ( ~ q(esk1_0)
      & ( p(X6)
        | ~ r(X6) )
      & r(esk1_0)
      & ( q(X5)
        | ~ p(X5) ) ),
    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,
    ~ q(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ p(X1)
    | q(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ p(esk1_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ r(X1)
    | p(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    r(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SYN969+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.35  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 11:29:20 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.39  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.39  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
% 0.09/0.41  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % new_bool_3 with pid 970482 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.09/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.41  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % SubtermCWHack with pid 970487 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.41  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.41  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.41  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.41  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.41  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.41  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.41  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.41  
% 0.09/0.41  % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.41  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.41  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.41  % Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.09/0.41  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Initial clauses                      : 4
% 0.09/0.41  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 4
% 0.09/0.41  % Processed clauses                    : 5
% 0.09/0.41  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % ...remaining for further processing  : 5
% 0.09/0.41  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Generated clauses                    : 2
% 0.09/0.41  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.09/0.41  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.09/0.41  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.09/0.41  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.09/0.41  % Current number of processed clauses  : 5
% 0.09/0.41  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.09/0.41  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.41  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.09/0.41  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.09/0.41  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.41  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.09/0.41  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 248
% 0.09/0.41  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 90
% 0.09/0.41  
% 0.09/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.41  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.41  % System time              : 0.000 s
% 0.09/0.41  % Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.09/0.41  
% 0.09/0.41  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.41  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.41  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.41  % Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.09/0.41  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.41  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------