↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYO208^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n026.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 08:44:00 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s 0.27s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (   6 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   23 (  11 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   56 (  11   ~;   6   |;   1   &;  35   @)
%                                         (   3 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   10 (   6 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   13 (  13   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    4 (   2 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (   3   ^;  13   !;   4   ?;  20   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
    a: $tType ).

thf(decl_23,type,
    epred1_0: a > a > $o ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    esk1_1: ( a > $o ) > a ).

thf(cCT31,conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1: a > a > $o] :
      ! [X2: a > $o] :
      ? [X3: a] :
        ( ( ( X1 @ X3 )
          = X2 )
      <=> ( X2 = X2 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.RyrTk0IZit/E---3.1_842482.p',cCT31) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ? [X1: a > a > $o] :
        ! [X2: a > $o] :
        ? [X3: a] :
          ( ( ( X1 @ X3 )
            = X2 )
        <=> ( X2 = X2 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cCT31]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X8: a > $o] :
      ( ( ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X8 ) )
         != X8 )
        | ( X8 = X8 ) )
      & ( ( X8 != X8 )
        | ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X8 ) )
          = X8 ) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o] :
      ( ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) )
        = X2 )
      | ( X2 != X2 ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) )
      = X2 ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o,X10: a] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X10 )
    <=> ( X2 @ X10 ) ),
    inference(arg_cong,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o,X3: a] :
      ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X3 )
      | ~ ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o,X3: a] :
      ( ( epred1_0
        @ ( esk1_1
          @ ^ [Z0: a] :
              ~ ( X2 @ Z0 ) )
        @ X3 )
      | ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
    inference(primitive_enumeration,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_6]) ).

thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X2: a > $o,X3: a] :
      ( ( X2 @ X3 )
      | ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) @ X3 ) ),
    inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ( epred1_0
    @ ( esk1_1
      @ ^ [Z0: a] :
          ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 @ Z0 ) )
    @ ( esk1_1
      @ ^ [Z0: a] :
          ~ ( epred1_0 @ Z0 @ Z0 ) ) ),
    inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SYO208^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.19  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.19  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.19  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.19  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.19  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.19  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.19  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.19  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:42:12 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.19  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.19  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.24  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.25  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.RyrTk0IZit/E---3.1_842482.p
% 0.22/0.27  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.22/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % post_as_ho4 with pid 842510 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Result found by post_as_ho4
% 0.22/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.27  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.27  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.22/0.27  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % SubtermCWHack with pid 842517 completed with status 10
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % post_as_ho10 with pid 842523 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Result found by post_as_ho10
% 0.22/0.27  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.27  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.27  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFFBN
% 0.22/0.27  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % SubtermCWHack with pid 842517 completed with status 10
% 0.22/0.27  % Starting post_as_ho10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.27  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/0.27  
% 0.22/0.27  % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.27  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.27  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.27  % Parsed axioms                        : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Initial clauses                      : 3
% 0.22/0.27  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 1
% 0.22/0.27  % Processed clauses                    : 17
% 0.22/0.27  % ...of these trivial                  : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.22/0.27  % ...remaining for further processing  : 12
% 0.22/0.27  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Generated clauses                    : 33
% 0.22/0.27  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 24
% 0.22/0.27  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Paramodulations                      : 15
% 0.22/0.27  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Equation resolutions                 : 1
% 0.22/0.27  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Total rewrite steps                  : 4
% 0.22/0.27  % ...of those cached                   : 1
% 0.22/0.27  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27  % Current number of processed clauses  : 10
% 0.22/0.27  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.22/0.27  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.27  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.22/0.27  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 4
% 0.22/0.27  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8
% 0.22/0.27  % ...number of literals in the above   : 13
% 0.22/0.27  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Current number of archived clauses   : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.22/0.27  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.22/0.27  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 0.22/0.27  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.22/0.27  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 4
% 0.22/0.27  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/0.27  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1555
% 0.22/0.27  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 42
% 0.22/0.27  
% 0.22/0.27  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.27  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.27  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.27  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.22/0.27  % Maximum resident set size: 3884 pages
% 0.22/0.27  
% 0.22/0.27  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.27  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.27  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.22/0.27  % Total time               : 0.012 s
% 0.22/0.27  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.27  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------