↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYO504^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n003.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 08:43:17 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.09s 0.25s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SYO504^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.17  % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.17  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.17  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.17  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.17  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.17  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.17  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.17  % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:13:13 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.17  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.17  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.22  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.23  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.wNm6oRMnYk/E---3.1_2786006.p
% 0.09/0.25  % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.09/0.25  % partial match(1): HSSSSMSSSSSNHHN
% 0.09/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSLSSSSSNHHN.
% 0.09/0.25  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_13 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % new_ho_8 with pid 2786038 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Result found by new_ho_8
% 0.09/0.25  % partial match(1): HSSSSMSSSSSNHHN
% 0.09/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSLSSSSSNHHN.
% 0.09/0.25  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_13 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,10,,2,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.09/0.25  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,10,,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.09/0.25  % Search class: HGUNF-FFMF00-SHHFFFNN
% 0.09/0.25  % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFMF00-SHHFFMBN
% 0.09/0.25  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2786043 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.25  % partial match(1): HSSSSMSSSSSNHHN
% 0.09/0.25  % Preprocessing class: HSSSSLSSSSSNHHN.
% 0.09/0.25  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting post_as_ho2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_13 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,10,,2,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.09/0.25  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,10,,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.09/0.25  % Search class: HGUNF-FFMF00-SHHFFFNN
% 0.09/0.25  % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFMF00-SHHFFMBN
% 0.09/0.25  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.25  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.25  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.25  
% 0.09/0.25  % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.25  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.25  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_23, type, a: $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_24, type, b: $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_25, type, h: $o > $o > $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_26, type, i: $o > $o > $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_27, type, g: ($o > $o > $o) > $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_28, type, f: (($o > $o > $o) > $o) > $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_29, type, epred1_0: $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(decl_30, type, epred2_0: $o).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(claim, conjecture, ((((((h @ ((a)) @ ((b)))<=>((a)&(b)))&((i @ ((a)) @ ((b)))<=>((a)|(b))))&((f @ g)<=>(i @ ((a)) @ ((b)))))&(h @ ((a)) @ ((b))))=>(f @ g)), file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wNm6oRMnYk/E---3.1_2786006.p', claim)).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~(((((((h @ ((a)) @ ((b)))<=>((a)&(b)))&((i @ ((a)) @ ((b)))<=>((a)|(b))))&((f @ g)<=>(i @ ((a)) @ ((b)))))&(h @ ((a)) @ ((b))))=>(f @ g))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[claim])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_2, plain, ((epred1_0)<=>((~(a)|((~(b)|(h @ $true @ $true))&((b)|(h @ $true @ $false))))&((a)|((~(b)|(h @ $false @ $true))&((b)|(h @ $false @ $false)))))), introduced(definition)).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_3, plain, ((epred2_0)<=>((~(a)|((~(b)|(i @ $true @ $true))&((b)|(i @ $true @ $false))))&((a)|((~(b)|(i @ $false @ $true))&((b)|(i @ $false @ $false)))))), introduced(definition)).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ~(((((((epred1_0)<=>((a)&(b)))&((epred2_0)<=>((a)|(b))))&((f @ g)<=>(epred2_0)))&(epred1_0))=>(f @ g))), inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]), c_0_2]), c_0_3]), c_0_3]), c_0_2])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, ((((((((a)|~(epred1_0))&((b)|~(epred1_0)))&(~(a)|~(b)|(epred1_0)))&((~(epred2_0)|((a)|(b)))&((~(a)|(epred2_0))&(~(b)|(epred2_0)))))&((~(f @ g)|(epred2_0))&(~(epred2_0)|(f @ g))))&(epred1_0))&~(f @ g)), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ((a)|~((epred1_0))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, (epred1_0), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, ((epred2_0)|~((a))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, (a), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_7])])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, ((f @ g)|~((epred2_0))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, (epred2_0), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9])])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, ~((f @ g)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.25  thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10, c_0_11])]), c_0_12]), ['proof']).
% 0.09/0.25  % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.09/0.25  % Parsed axioms                        : 7
% 0.09/0.25  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 6
% 0.09/0.25  % Initial clauses                      : 68
% 0.09/0.25  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 24
% 0.09/0.25  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 44
% 0.09/0.25  % Processed clauses                    : 9
% 0.09/0.25  % ...of these trivial                  : 3
% 0.09/0.25  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % ...remaining for further processing  : 5
% 0.09/0.25  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Total rewrite steps                  : 12
% 0.09/0.25  % ...of those cached                   : 8
% 0.09/0.25  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.09/0.25  % Current number of processed clauses  : 5
% 0.09/0.25  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 4
% 0.09/0.25  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.25  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.09/0.25  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 35
% 0.09/0.25  % ...number of literals in the above   : 148
% 0.09/0.25  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.09/0.25  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 2874
% 0.09/0.25  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 506
% 0.09/0.25  
% 0.09/0.25  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.25  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.25  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.25  % Total time               : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.25  % Maximum resident set size: 3880 pages
% 0.09/0.25  
% 0.09/0.25  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.25  % User time                : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.25  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.25  % Total time               : 0.013 s
% 0.09/0.25  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.25  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------