TSTP Solution File: ALG439-1 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : ALG439-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Sat May 4 07:16:42 EDT 2024
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.36s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 4 unt; 2 nHn; 7 RR)
% Number of literals : 14 ( 13 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
( v_c != v_y
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.wCR2yplNhk/E---3.1_24105.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0,axiom,
X1 = c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),X2,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.wCR2yplNhk/E---3.1_24105.p',cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = v_y
| v_c = v_y ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.wCR2yplNhk/E---3.1_24105.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( v_c != v_y
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( v_c != v_y
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
X1 = c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),X2,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = v_y
| v_c = v_y ),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
v_c != v_y,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5])]),c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.16 % Problem : ALG439-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.08/0.16 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.16/0.36 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % DateTime : Fri May 3 13:46:49 EDT 2024
% 0.16/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.53 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --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.wCR2yplNhk/E---3.1_24105.p
% 0.36/0.58 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.36/0.58 # Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.58 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with pid 24183 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S
% 0.36/0.58 # Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.58 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.36/0.58 # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.58 # Scheduled 13 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y with 90s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 121s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 90s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 90s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 24194 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Result found by G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.36/0.58 # Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.58 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.36/0.58 # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.58 # Scheduled 13 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y with 90s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 121s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 90s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.58 # Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 0.36/0.58 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.36/0.58
% 0.36/0.58 # Proof found!
% 0.36/0.58 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.36/0.58 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.36/0.58 # Parsed axioms : 916
% 0.36/0.58 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Initial clauses : 916
% 0.36/0.58 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Initial clauses in saturation : 914
% 0.36/0.58 # Processed clauses : 47
% 0.36/0.58 # ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.36/0.58 # ...subsumed : 5
% 0.36/0.58 # ...remaining for further processing : 40
% 0.36/0.58 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.36/0.58 # Generated clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Paramodulations : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # NegExts : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.36/0.58 # ...of those cached : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.58 # Current number of processed clauses : 37
% 0.36/0.58 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 32
% 0.36/0.58 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.36/0.58 # Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 869
% 0.36/0.58 # ...number of literals in the above : 2249
% 0.36/0.58 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.36/0.58 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.36/0.58 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.36/0.58 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.36/0.58 # Termbank termtop insertions : 22830
% 0.36/0.58 # Search garbage collected termcells : 1633
% 0.36/0.58
% 0.36/0.58 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.58 # User time : 0.022 s
% 0.36/0.58 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.36/0.58 # Total time : 0.026 s
% 0.36/0.58 # Maximum resident set size: 3520 pages
% 0.36/0.58
% 0.36/0.58 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.58 # User time : 0.069 s
% 0.36/0.58 # System time : 0.017 s
% 0.36/0.58 # Total time : 0.086 s
% 0.36/0.58 # Maximum resident set size: 2332 pages
% 0.36/0.58 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.36/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------