TSTP Solution File: NUN081+2 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : NUN081+2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n015.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 02:15:35 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 29 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 92 ( 27 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 110 ( 47 ~; 35 |; 28 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 14 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 72 ( 10 sgn 18 !; 20 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(axiom_1,axiom,
? [X1] :
! [X2] :
( ( ~ r1(X2)
& X2 != X1 )
| ( r1(X2)
& X2 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_1) ).
fof(xplusyeqthree,conjecture,
? [X39,X22,X23] :
( r3(X39,X22,X23)
& ? [X16] :
( X23 = X16
& ? [X17] :
( r2(X17,X16)
& ? [X25] :
( r2(X25,X17)
& ? [X19] :
( r1(X19)
& r2(X19,X25) ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',xplusyeqthree) ).
fof(axiom_4a,axiom,
! [X30] :
? [X31] :
( ? [X32] :
( r1(X32)
& r3(X30,X32,X31) )
& X31 = X30 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_4a) ).
fof(axiom_2,axiom,
! [X3] :
? [X4] :
! [X5] :
( ( ~ r2(X3,X5)
& X5 != X4 )
| ( r2(X3,X5)
& X5 = X4 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_2) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
? [X1] :
! [X2] :
( ( ~ r1(X2)
& X2 != X1 )
| ( r1(X2)
& X2 = X1 ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X39,X22,X23] :
( r3(X39,X22,X23)
& ? [X16] :
( X23 = X16
& ? [X17] :
( r2(X17,X16)
& ? [X25] :
( r2(X25,X17)
& ? [X19] :
( r1(X19)
& r2(X19,X25) ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[xplusyeqthree]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X73] :
( r1(esk11_1(X73))
& r3(X73,esk11_1(X73),esk10_1(X73))
& esk10_1(X73) = X73 ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[axiom_4a])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X72] :
( ( r1(X72)
| ~ r1(X72) )
& ( X72 = esk9_0
| ~ r1(X72) )
& ( r1(X72)
| X72 != esk9_0 )
& ( X72 = esk9_0
| X72 != esk9_0 ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X44,X45,X46,X47,X48,X49,X50] :
( ~ r3(X44,X45,X46)
| X46 != X47
| ~ r2(X48,X47)
| ~ r2(X49,X48)
| ~ r1(X50)
| ~ r2(X50,X49) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
r3(X1,esk11_1(X1),esk10_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
esk10_1(X1) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( X1 = esk9_0
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
r1(esk11_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X3] :
? [X4] :
! [X5] :
( ( ~ r2(X3,X5)
& X5 != X4 )
| ( r2(X3,X5)
& X5 = X4 ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r3(X1,X2,X3)
| X3 != X4
| ~ r2(X5,X4)
| ~ r2(X6,X5)
| ~ r1(X7)
| ~ r2(X7,X6) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
r3(X1,esk11_1(X1),X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
esk11_1(X1) = esk9_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
fof(c_0_17,plain,
! [X51,X53] :
( ( r2(X51,X53)
| ~ r2(X51,X53) )
& ( X53 = esk1_1(X51)
| ~ r2(X51,X53) )
& ( r2(X51,X53)
| X53 != esk1_1(X51) )
& ( X53 = esk1_1(X51)
| X53 != esk1_1(X51) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_13])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r3(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ r2(X4,X5)
| ~ r2(X5,X6)
| ~ r2(X6,X3)
| ~ r1(X4) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
r3(X1,esk9_0,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( r2(X1,X2)
| X2 != esk1_1(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,X2)
| ~ r2(X2,X3)
| ~ r2(X3,X4)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
r2(X1,esk1_1(X1)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(esk1_1(X1),X2)
| ~ r2(X2,X3)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( r1(X1)
| X1 != esk9_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(esk1_1(esk1_1(X1)),X2)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
r1(esk9_0),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
~ r1(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : NUN081+2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sat May 18 15:11:38 EDT 2024
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.48 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
% 0.21/0.50 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN 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 # new_bool_3 with pid 6671 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FGHSM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 6676 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FGHSM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # Proof found!
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.50 # Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses : 27
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses in saturation : 21
% 0.21/0.50 # Processed clauses : 63
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # ...remaining for further processing : 61
% 0.21/0.50 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-subsumed : 10
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Generated clauses : 42
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 41
% 0.21/0.50 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Paramodulations : 33
% 0.21/0.50 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of those cached : 1
% 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 : 17
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 18
% 0.21/0.50 # ...number of literals in the above : 45
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived clauses : 38
% 0.21/0.50 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 203
% 0.21/0.50 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 102
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.21/0.50 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1643
% 0.21/0.50 # Search garbage collected termcells : 310
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1720 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1744 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.21/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------