↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYO356^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 : Wed Sep 30 08:42:48 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.26s 0.37s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   4 unt;   0 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   12 (   7 equ;   0 cnn)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   73 (   6   ~;   3   |;   2   &;  56   @)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   6  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   5 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   14 (  14   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of symbols     :    6 (   4 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   18 (   8   ^;  10   !;   0   ?;  18   :)

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

thf(decl_23,type,
    v: a ).

thf(decl_24,type,
    u: a ).

thf(decl_25,type,
    esk1_1: ( a > a > $o ) > a ).

thf(decl_26,type,
    epred1_0: a > $o ).

thf(cE1LEIBEQ2_pme,conjecture,
    ( ! [X1: a > a > $o] :
        ( ! [X2: a] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X2 )
       => ( X1 @ u @ v ) )
   => ! [X3: a > $o] :
        ( ( X3 @ u )
       => ( X3 @ v ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.VkwRTX15Pa/E---3.1_3625860.p',cE1LEIBEQ2_pme) ).

thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ! [X1: a > a > $o] :
          ( ! [X2: a] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X2 )
         => ( X1 @ u @ v ) )
     => ! [X3: a > $o] :
          ( ( X3 @ u )
         => ( X3 @ v ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cE1LEIBEQ2_pme]) ).

thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X7: a > a > $o] :
      ( ( ~ ( X7 @ ( esk1_1 @ X7 ) @ ( esk1_1 @ X7 ) )
        | ( X7 @ u @ v ) )
      & ( epred1_0 @ u )
      & ~ ( epred1_0 @ v ) ),
    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])])])])]) ).

thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X1: a > a > $o] :
      ( ( X1 @ u @ v )
      | ~ ( X1 @ ( esk1_1 @ X1 ) @ ( esk1_1 @ X1 ) ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X10: a > a > a,X11: a > a > a] :
      ( ( ( X10 @ u @ v )
        = ( X11 @ u @ v ) )
      | ( ( X10
          @ ( esk1_1
            @ ^ [Z0: a,Z1: a] :
                ( ( X10 @ Z0 @ Z1 )
                = ( X11 @ Z0 @ Z1 ) ) )
          @ ( esk1_1
            @ ^ [Z0: a,Z1: a] :
                ( ( X10 @ Z0 @ Z1 )
                = ( X11 @ Z0 @ Z1 ) ) ) )
       != ( X11
          @ ( esk1_1
            @ ^ [Z0: a,Z1: a] :
                ( ( X10 @ Z0 @ Z1 )
                = ( X11 @ Z0 @ Z1 ) ) )
          @ ( esk1_1
            @ ^ [Z0: a,Z1: a] :
                ( ( X10 @ Z0 @ Z1 )
                = ( X11 @ Z0 @ Z1 ) ) ) ) ) ),
    inference(primitive_enumeration,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_3]) ).

thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( epred1_0 @ v ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    v = u,
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    epred1_0 @ u,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

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

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04  % Problem  : SYO356^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.25  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.25  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.25  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.25  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.25  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.25  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.25  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.25  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:46:40 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.25  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.25  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.32  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.33  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.VkwRTX15Pa/E---3.1_3625860.p
% 0.26/0.37  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.26/0.37  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.37  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % post_as_ho12 with pid 3625875 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.26/0.37  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.37  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.37  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.37  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.26/0.37  % partial match(1): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.26/0.37  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3625883 completed with status 10
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % post_as_ho12 with pid 3625897 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.26/0.37  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.37  % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.37  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.37  % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.26/0.37  % partial match(1): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSSFFSBN
% 0.26/0.37  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % SubtermCWHack with pid 3625883 completed with status 10
% 0.26/0.37  % Starting post_as_ho12 with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.37  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.37  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.26/0.37  
% 0.26/0.37  % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.37  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.37  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.37  % Parsed axioms                        : 4
% 0.26/0.37  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Initial clauses                      : 6
% 0.26/0.37  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 3
% 0.26/0.37  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 3
% 0.26/0.37  % Processed clauses                    : 8
% 0.26/0.37  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.26/0.37  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Backward-rewritten                   : 3
% 0.26/0.37  % Generated clauses                    : 8
% 0.26/0.37  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.26/0.37  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Equation resolutions                 : 5
% 0.26/0.37  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Total rewrite steps                  : 5
% 0.26/0.37  % ...of those cached                   : 3
% 0.26/0.37  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.26/0.37  % Current number of processed clauses  : 2
% 0.26/0.37  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2
% 0.26/0.37  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.37  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.26/0.37  % ...number of literals in the above   : 1
% 0.26/0.37  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Current number of archived clauses   : 6
% 0.26/0.37  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.26/0.37  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.26/0.37  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.26/0.37  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 732
% 0.26/0.37  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 86
% 0.26/0.37  
% 0.26/0.37  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.37  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.37  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.37  % Total time               : 0.009 s
% 0.26/0.37  % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.26/0.37  
% 0.26/0.37  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.37  % User time                : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.37  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.37  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.26/0.37  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.37  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------