TSTP Solution File: NUM742_8 by E-SAT---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem : NUM742_8 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n007.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 : Tue May 21 01:27:52 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 13
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 35 ( 12 unt; 6 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 56 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 49 ( 22 ~; 19 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 4 ( 2 >; 2 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 sgn 35 !; 0 ?; 35 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
frac: $tType ).
tff(decl_22,type,
x: frac ).
tff(decl_23,type,
y: frac ).
tff(decl_24,type,
z: frac ).
tff(decl_25,type,
lessf: ( frac * frac ) > $o ).
tff(decl_26,type,
eq: ( frac * frac ) > $o ).
tff(l,axiom,
( ~ lessf(x,y)
=> eq(x,y) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l) ).
tff(satz51a,conjecture,
lessf(x,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz51a) ).
tff(satz50,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X3)
=> ( lessf(X3,X4)
=> lessf(X2,X4) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz50) ).
tff(satz38,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( eq(X2,X3)
=> eq(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz38) ).
tff(k,axiom,
lessf(y,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k) ).
tff(satz45,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X3)
=> ( eq(X2,X4)
=> ( eq(X3,X5)
=> lessf(X4,X5) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz45) ).
tff(satz37,axiom,
! [X2: frac] : eq(X2,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz37) ).
tff(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ lessf(x,y)
=> eq(x,y) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l]) ).
tff(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz51a])]) ).
tff(c_0_9,plain,
! [X10: frac,X11: frac,X12: frac] :
( ~ lessf(X10,X11)
| ~ lessf(X11,X12)
| lessf(X10,X12) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz50])])]) ).
tff(c_0_10,plain,
! [X13: frac,X14: frac] :
( ~ eq(X13,X14)
| eq(X14,X13) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz38])])]) ).
tff(c_0_11,plain,
( lessf(x,y)
| eq(x,y) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
tff(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X4)
| ~ lessf(X2,X3)
| ~ lessf(X3,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
tcf(c_0_14,plain,
lessf(y,z),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[k]) ).
tff(c_0_15,plain,
! [X6: frac,X7: frac,X8: frac,X9: frac] :
( ~ lessf(X6,X7)
| ~ eq(X6,X8)
| ~ eq(X7,X9)
| lessf(X8,X9) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz45])])]) ).
tff(c_0_16,plain,
! [X15: frac] : eq(X15,X15),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz37]) ).
tcf(c_0_17,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( eq(X3,X2)
| ~ eq(X2,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
tcf(c_0_18,plain,
( lessf(x,y)
| eq(x,y) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
tcf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
tcf(c_0_20,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( lessf(X2,z)
| ~ lessf(X2,y) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
tcf(c_0_21,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( lessf(X4,X5)
| ~ lessf(X2,X3)
| ~ eq(X2,X4)
| ~ eq(X3,X5) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
tcf(c_0_22,plain,
! [X2: frac] : eq(X2,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
tcf(c_0_23,plain,
( eq(y,x)
| lessf(x,y) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
tcf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,y),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
tcf(c_0_25,plain,
! [X2: frac,X4: frac,X3: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X3)
| ~ eq(X4,X2)
| ~ lessf(X4,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
tcf(c_0_26,plain,
eq(y,x),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).
tcf(c_0_27,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( lessf(x,X2)
| ~ lessf(y,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_27]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : NUM742_8 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Mon May 20 04:23:52 EDT 2024
% 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.47 Running first-order model finding
% 0.21/0.47 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.21/0.48 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.21/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # new_bool_1 with pid 10657 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.48 # Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.21/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.48 # Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.48 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 10663 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.48 # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.21/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.48 # Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.48 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.48 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.48 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.48 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.48
% 0.21/0.48 # Proof found!
% 0.21/0.48 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.48 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.49 # Parsed axioms : 14
% 0.21/0.49 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.21/0.49 # Initial clauses : 7
% 0.21/0.49 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.21/0.49 # Processed clauses : 37
% 0.21/0.49 # ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.21/0.49 # ...subsumed : 5
% 0.21/0.49 # ...remaining for further processing : 31
% 0.21/0.49 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.21/0.49 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Generated clauses : 40
% 0.21/0.49 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 29
% 0.21/0.49 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Paramodulations : 38
% 0.21/0.49 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.21/0.49 # ...of those cached : 1
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.49 # Current number of processed clauses : 21
% 0.21/0.49 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.21/0.49 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.21/0.49 # Non-unit-clauses : 13
% 0.21/0.49 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.21/0.49 # ...number of literals in the above : 3
% 0.21/0.49 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.21/0.49 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 25
% 0.21/0.49 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.21/0.49 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.21/0.49 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 18
% 0.21/0.49 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.21/0.49 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.49 # Termbank termtop insertions : 834
% 0.21/0.49 # Search garbage collected termcells : 70
% 0.21/0.49
% 0.21/0.49 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.49 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.49 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.49 # Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.49 # Maximum resident set size: 1752 pages
% 0.21/0.49
% 0.21/0.49 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.49 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.49 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.49 # Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.49 # Maximum resident set size: 1716 pages
% 0.21/0.49 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------