↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYO010^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n005.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 08:42:08 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.07s 0.24s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.07s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : SYO010^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.17  % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.17  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.17  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.17  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.17  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.07/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:21:16 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.07/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.21  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.07/0.22  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.qeJr9dinV9/E---3.1_1870142.p
% 0.07/0.24  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.07/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLMNSSN.
% 0.07/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 1870155 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.07/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLMNSSN.
% 0.07/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.07/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.07/0.24  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFMSBN
% 0.07/0.24  % partial match(1): HHUSF-FFSF11-SSSFMSBN
% 0.07/0.24  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting new_bool_3 with 146s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1870159 completed with status 10
% 0.07/0.24  % new_bool_3 with pid 1870163 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.07/0.24  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLMNSSN.
% 0.07/0.24  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.07/0.24  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.07/0.24  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFMSBN
% 0.07/0.24  % partial match(1): HHUSF-FFSF11-SSSFMSBN
% 0.07/0.24  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Starting new_bool_3 with 146s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.24  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.07/0.24  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.07/0.24  
% 0.07/0.24  % Proof found!
% 0.07/0.24  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.07/0.24  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.07/0.24  thf(decl_23, type, leibeq: $i > $i > $o).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(decl_24, type, p: ($i > $i) > $o).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(decl_25, type, f: $i > $i).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(decl_26, type, esk1_0: $i > $i).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(conj, conjecture, ((![X4:$i]:((leibeq @ (f @ X4) @ X4))&(p @ (^[X4:$i]:(X4))))=>(p @ (^[X4:$i]:(f @ X4)))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.qeJr9dinV9/E---3.1_1870142.p', conj)).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(leibeq, axiom, ((leibeq)=(^[X1:$i, X2:$i]:(![X3:$i > $o]:((((X3 @ X1))=>((X3 @ X2))))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.qeJr9dinV9/E---3.1_1870142.p', leibeq)).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ~(((![X4:$i]:((leibeq @ (f @ X4) @ X4))&(p @ (^[X4:$i]:(X4))))=>(p @ (^[X4:$i]:(f @ X4))))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_3, plain, ((leibeq)=(^[Z0:$i, Z1:$i]:(![X3:$i > $o]:((((X3 @ Z0))=>((X3 @ Z1))))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[leibeq])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ~(((![X4:$i, X6:$i > $o]:(((X6 @ (f @ X4))=>(X6 @ X4)))&(p @ (^[Z0:$i]:(Z0))))=>(p @ f))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]), c_0_3])])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, ![X7:$i, X8:$i > $o]:((((~(X8 @ (f @ X7))|(X8 @ X7))&(p @ (^[Z0:$i]:(Z0))))&~(p @ f))), inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_6, plain, ![X9:$i]:(((esk1_0 @ X9)=(X9))), introduced(definition)).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_7, plain, ![X10:$i]:(((esk1_0 @ X10)=(X10))), inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (((p @ esk1_0))=(($true))), inference(lift_lambdas,[status(thm)],[inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]), c_0_6])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_9, plain, ![X1:$i]:(((esk1_0 @ X1)=(X1))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, (((p @ (^[Z0:$i]:(Z0))))=(($true))), inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, ~((p @ f)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, (p @ (^[Z0:$i]:(Z0))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_10])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ![X3:$i > $o, X1:$i]:(((X3 @ X1)|~((X3 @ (f @ X1))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_14, plain, ((^[Z0:$i]:(Z0))!=(f)), inference(ext_sup,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_12])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_15, negated_conjecture, ![X1:$i]:(((f @ X1)=(X1))), inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]), c_0_13])).
% 0.07/0.24  thf(c_0_16, plain, ($false), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(neg_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]), c_0_15])]), ['proof']).
% 0.07/0.24  % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.07/0.24  % Parsed axioms                        : 5
% 0.07/0.24  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Initial clauses                      : 7
% 0.07/0.24  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 4
% 0.07/0.24  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3
% 0.07/0.24  % Processed clauses                    : 8
% 0.07/0.24  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.07/0.24  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.07/0.24  % Generated clauses                    : 10
% 0.07/0.24  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.07/0.24  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % NegExts                              : 1
% 0.07/0.24  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.07/0.24  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.07/0.24  % Current number of processed clauses  : 4
% 0.07/0.24  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.07/0.24  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.07/0.24  %    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.07/0.24  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5
% 0.07/0.24  % ...number of literals in the above   : 9
% 0.07/0.24  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Current number of archived clauses   : 5
% 0.07/0.24  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.07/0.24  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.07/0.24  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.07/0.24  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.07/0.24  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 532
% 0.07/0.24  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 96
% 0.07/0.24  
% 0.07/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.24  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.07/0.24  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.07/0.24  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.07/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.07/0.24  
% 0.07/0.24  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.24  % User time                : 0.009 s
% 0.07/0.24  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.07/0.24  % Total time               : 0.018 s
% 0.07/0.24  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.07/0.24  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------