↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYO002^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n010.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:42:07 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.21s 0.28s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (   6 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   14 (   3 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   51 (   6   ~;   2   |;   2   &;  34   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   7  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   10 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    9 (   9   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    7 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   19 (   4   ^;  15   !;   0   ?;  19   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
    leibeq: $i > $i > $o ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    esk1_0: $i ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    esk2_0: $i ).

thf(decl_26,type,
    esk3_0: $i > $i ).

thf(decl_27,type,
    epred1_0: $i > $o ).

thf(conj,conjecture,
    ! [X1: $i,X2: $i,X4: $i > $i] :
      ( ( leibeq @ X1 @ X2 )
     => ( leibeq @ ( X4 @ X1 ) @ ( X4 @ X2 ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.UjyWNCLyEq/E---3.1_3069623.p',conj) ).

thf(leibeq,axiom,
    ( leibeq
    = ( ^ [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
        ! [X3: $i > $o] :
          ( ( X3 @ X1 )
         => ( X3 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.UjyWNCLyEq/E---3.1_3069623.p',leibeq) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1: $i,X2: $i,X4: $i > $i] :
        ( ( leibeq @ X1 @ X2 )
       => ( leibeq @ ( X4 @ X1 ) @ ( X4 @ X2 ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj]) ).

thf(c_0_3,plain,
    ( leibeq
    = ( ^ [Z0: $i,Z1: $i] :
        ! [X3: $i > $o] :
          ( ( X3 @ Z0 )
         => ( X3 @ Z1 ) ) ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[leibeq]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1: $i,X2: $i,X4: $i > $i] :
        ( ! [X8: $i > $o] :
            ( ( X8 @ X1 )
           => ( X8 @ X2 ) )
       => ! [X9: $i > $o] :
            ( ( X9 @ ( X4 @ X1 ) )
           => ( X9 @ ( X4 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
    inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X13: $i > $o] :
      ( ( ~ ( X13 @ esk1_0 )
        | ( X13 @ esk2_0 ) )
      & ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_0 @ esk1_0 ) )
      & ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_0 @ esk2_0 ) ) ),
    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_4])])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X3: $i > $o] :
      ( ( X3 @ esk2_0 )
      | ~ ( X3 @ esk1_0 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    epred1_0 @ ( esk3_0 @ esk1_0 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    esk1_0 = esk2_0,
    inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_0 @ esk2_0 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SYO002^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.20  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.20  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.20  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.20  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.20  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.20  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.20  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.20  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:21:03 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.20  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.20  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.25  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.26  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.UjyWNCLyEq/E---3.1_3069623.p
% 0.21/0.28  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.21/0.28  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best3_fo with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best6_lambda with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % ehoh_best3_fo with pid 3069655 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Result found by ehoh_best3_fo
% 0.21/0.28  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best3_fo with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.28  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.28  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFMSBN
% 0.21/0.28  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best3_fo with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting sh5l with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3069659 completed with status 10
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % ehoh_best3_fo with pid 3069661 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Result found by ehoh_best3_fo
% 0.21/0.28  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best3_fo with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.28  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.28  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFMSBN
% 0.21/0.28  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Starting ehoh_best3_fo with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.28  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.28  
% 0.21/0.28  % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.28  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.28  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.28  % Parsed axioms                        : 3
% 0.21/0.28  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Initial clauses                      : 4
% 0.21/0.28  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3
% 0.21/0.28  % Processed clauses                    : 7
% 0.21/0.28  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % ...remaining for further processing  : 7
% 0.21/0.28  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % Generated clauses                    : 5
% 0.21/0.28  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.21/0.28  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Paramodulations                      : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28  % Current number of processed clauses  : 3
% 0.21/0.28  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.21/0.28  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.28  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.21/0.28  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.21/0.28  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.21/0.28  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.21/0.28  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/0.28  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 376
% 0.21/0.28  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 140
% 0.21/0.28  
% 0.21/0.28  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.28  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.21/0.28  % Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.28  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.21/0.28  
% 0.21/0.28  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28  % User time                : 0.014 s
% 0.21/0.28  % System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.21/0.28  % Total time               : 0.019 s
% 0.21/0.28  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/0.28  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------