TSTP Solution File: CAT010-1 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : CAT010-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n028.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 : Mon May 20 18:59:12 EDT 2024
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 35 ( 17 unt; 0 nHn; 29 RR)
% Number of literals : 65 ( 7 equ; 33 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 52 ( 5 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(closure_of_composition,axiom,
( product(X1,X2,compose(X1,X2))
| ~ defined(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',closure_of_composition) ).
cnf(category_theory_axiom3,axiom,
( defined(X4,X1)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ defined(X4,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',category_theory_axiom3) ).
cnf(ba_defined,hypothesis,
defined(b,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ba_defined) ).
cnf(product_on_codomain,axiom,
product(codomain(X1),X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',product_on_codomain) ).
cnf(mapping_from_codomain_of_x_to_x,axiom,
defined(codomain(X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',mapping_from_codomain_of_x_to_x) ).
cnf(identity1,axiom,
( product(X1,X2,X2)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',identity1) ).
cnf(composition_is_well_defined,axiom,
( X3 = X4
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',composition_is_well_defined) ).
cnf(codomain_is_an_identity_map,axiom,
identity_map(codomain(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',codomain_is_an_identity_map) ).
cnf(identity2,axiom,
( product(X1,X2,X1)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CAT001-0.ax',identity2) ).
cnf(prove_codomain_of_ba_equals_codomain_of_b,negated_conjecture,
codomain(compose(b,a)) != codomain(b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_codomain_of_ba_equals_codomain_of_b) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( product(X1,X2,compose(X1,X2))
| ~ defined(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[closure_of_composition]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( defined(X4,X1)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ defined(X4,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[category_theory_axiom3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( product(X1,X2,compose(X1,X2))
| ~ defined(X1,X2) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
defined(b,a),
ba_defined ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( defined(X4,X1)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ defined(X4,X3) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
product(b,a,compose(b,a)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,axiom,
product(codomain(X1),X1,X1),
product_on_codomain ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
( defined(X1,b)
| ~ defined(X1,compose(b,a)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
defined(codomain(X1),X1),
mapping_from_codomain_of_x_to_x ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( product(X1,X2,X2)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[identity1]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( defined(X1,codomain(X2))
| ~ defined(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
defined(codomain(compose(b,a)),b),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( X3 = X4
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[composition_is_well_defined]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( product(X1,X2,X2)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X1) ),
c_0_19 ).
cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
defined(codomain(compose(b,a)),codomain(b)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,axiom,
identity_map(codomain(X1)),
codomain_is_an_identity_map ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
( product(X1,X2,X1)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[identity2]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,plain,
( X3 = X4
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X4) ),
c_0_22 ).
cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
product(codomain(compose(b,a)),codomain(b),codomain(b)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),c_0_25])]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
( product(X1,X2,X1)
| ~ defined(X1,X2)
| ~ identity_map(X2) ),
c_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
codomain(compose(b,a)) != codomain(b),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_codomain_of_ba_equals_codomain_of_b]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,hypothesis,
( X1 = codomain(b)
| ~ product(codomain(compose(b,a)),codomain(b),X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,hypothesis,
product(codomain(compose(b,a)),codomain(b),codomain(compose(b,a))),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_24]),c_0_25])]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
codomain(compose(b,a)) != codomain(b),
c_0_30 ).
cnf(c_0_34,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_32]),c_0_33]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.12 % Problem : CAT010-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.10/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Sat May 18 11:32:08 EDT 2024
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.19/0.48 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.50 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.19/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # new_bool_3 with pid 6615 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.50 # Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting G-E--_107_B00_00_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S071I with 181s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # G-E--_107_B00_00_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S071I with pid 6620 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Result found by G-E--_107_B00_00_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S071I
% 0.19/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.50 # Search class: FHUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.50 # Starting G-E--_107_B00_00_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S071I with 181s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.50 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.19/0.50 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.50
% 0.19/0.50 # Proof found!
% 0.19/0.50 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.50 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/0.50 # Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.19/0.50 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.19/0.50 # Initial clauses : 17
% 0.19/0.50 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.19/0.50 # Processed clauses : 168
% 0.19/0.50 # ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.19/0.50 # ...subsumed : 17
% 0.19/0.50 # ...remaining for further processing : 147
% 0.19/0.50 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Backward-rewritten : 62
% 0.19/0.50 # Generated clauses : 662
% 0.19/0.50 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 488
% 0.19/0.50 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Paramodulations : 662
% 0.19/0.50 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # NegExts : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Total rewrite steps : 450
% 0.19/0.50 # ...of those cached : 325
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.50 # Current number of processed clauses : 68
% 0.19/0.50 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.19/0.50 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.19/0.50 # Non-unit-clauses : 43
% 0.19/0.50 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 289
% 0.19/0.50 # ...number of literals in the above : 615
% 0.19/0.50 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Current number of archived clauses : 79
% 0.19/0.50 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 221
% 0.19/0.50 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 213
% 0.19/0.50 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 17
% 0.19/0.50 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.19/0.50 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # BW rewrite match attempts : 104
% 0.19/0.50 # BW rewrite match successes : 22
% 0.19/0.50 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/0.50 # Termbank termtop insertions : 9859
% 0.19/0.50 # Search garbage collected termcells : 63
% 0.19/0.50
% 0.19/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.50 # User time : 0.017 s
% 0.19/0.50 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.19/0.50 # Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.19/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1576 pages
% 0.19/0.50
% 0.19/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.50 # User time : 0.018 s
% 0.19/0.50 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/0.50 # Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.19/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1708 pages
% 0.19/0.50 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.19/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------