TSTP Solution File: LCL133-1 by E-SAT---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem : LCL133-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n029.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 08:26:29 EDT 2024
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 17 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 16 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(wajsberg_3,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p',wajsberg_3) ).
cnf(lemma_antecedent,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X2) = implies(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p',lemma_antecedent) ).
cnf(wajsberg_1,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p',wajsberg_1) ).
cnf(wajsberg_2,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p',wajsberg_2) ).
cnf(prove_wajsberg_lemma,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p',prove_wajsberg_lemma) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
wajsberg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X2) = implies(X2,X1),
lemma_antecedent ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
wajsberg_1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
implies(X1,implies(X2,X1)) = implies(X2,implies(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,truth) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
wajsberg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_7]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_lemma]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,implies(X1,X2)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
truth = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_13]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : LCL133-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.15/0.35 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % DateTime : Fri May 3 09:26:07 EDT 2024
% 0.15/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.49 Running first-order model finding
% 0.21/0.49 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --satauto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ZocHRqMNGr/E---3.1_5703.p
% 0.21/0.50 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 5822 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S2S with 675s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with pid 5830 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S2S with 675s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # Proof found!
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.50 # Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Processed clauses : 12
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.21/0.50 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.21/0.50 # Generated clauses : 94
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 89
% 0.21/0.50 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Paramodulations : 94
% 0.21/0.50 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Total rewrite steps : 78
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of those cached : 40
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 80
% 0.21/0.50 # ...number of literals in the above : 80
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.21/0.50 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 5
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match attempts : 33
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match successes : 18
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation attempts : 12
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Termbank termtop insertions : 718
% 0.21/0.50 # Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1544 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.016 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1684 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------