↑ 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  : SYO215^5 : 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 : n008.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 08:44:01 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.11s 0.26s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    7 (   3 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   11 (  10 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   14 (  10   ~;   0   |;   1   &;   0   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   4 avg)
%            Number of types       :    1 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    5 (   3 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   0   ^;   5   !;   9   ?;  14   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
    esk1_0: $i ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    esk2_0: $i ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    esk3_0: $i ).

thf(cTHM26,conjecture,
    ( ? [X1: $i,X2: $i] : ( X1 != X2 )
   => ! [X3: $i] :
      ? [X4: $i] : ( X4 != X3 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ez7HrapccI/E---3.1_3394599.p',cTHM26) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ? [X1: $i,X2: $i] : ( X1 != X2 )
     => ! [X3: $i] :
        ? [X4: $i] : ( X4 != X3 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM26]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ? [X1: $i,X2: $i] : ( X1 != X2 )
     => ! [X3: $i] :
        ? [X4: $i] : ( X4 != X3 ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X12: $i] :
      ( ( esk1_0 != esk2_0 )
      & ( X12 = esk3_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_2])])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    esk1_0 != esk2_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: $i] : ( X1 = esk3_0 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SYO215^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.18  % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.18  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:40:24 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.19  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.19  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.23  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.24  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.ez7HrapccI/E---3.1_3394599.p
% 0.11/0.26  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.11/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % sh4l with pid 3394614 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Result found by sh4l
% 0.11/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.26  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3394616 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.26  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.26  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.26  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.26  % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.26  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.26  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.26  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.26  
% 0.11/0.26  % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.26  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.26  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.26  % Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.11/0.26  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Initial clauses                      : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % Processed clauses                    : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % ...remaining for further processing  : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.11/0.26  % Generated clauses                    : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.11/0.26  % Current number of processed clauses  : 1
% 0.11/0.26  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.11/0.26  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.11/0.26  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.26  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.11/0.26  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % BW rewrite match successes           : 2
% 0.11/0.26  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.11/0.26  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 116
% 0.11/0.26  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 53
% 0.11/0.26  
% 0.11/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.26  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.11/0.26  % System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.26  % Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 3624 pages
% 0.11/0.26  
% 0.11/0.26  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.26  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.26  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.26  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.26  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.11/0.26  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------