TSTP Solution File: SET601^5 by E---3.1.00

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.1.00
% Problem  : SET601^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E %s %d THM

% Computer : n024.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 02:54:50 EDT 2024

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s 0.49s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem    : SET601^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPULimit   : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime   : Mon May 20 12:56:23 EDT 2024
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.22/0.48  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.48  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.22/0.49  # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.22/0.49  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.22/0.49  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # new_bool_9 with pid 24361 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.22/0.49  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.22/0.49  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.49  # Search class: HUUPF-FFSF00-MSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49  # partial match(1): HUUPF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49  # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # new_ho_10 with pid 24363 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.22/0.49  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.22/0.49  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.49  # Search class: HUUPF-FFSF00-MSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49  # partial match(1): HUUPF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49  # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.49  # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49  # Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.49  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/0.49  
% 0.22/0.49  # Proof found!
% 0.22/0.49  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.49  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.22/0.49  thf(decl_sort1, type, a: $tType).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(decl_22, type, epred1_0: a > $o).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(decl_23, type, epred2_0: a > $o).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(decl_24, type, epred3_0: a > $o).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(decl_25, type, esk1_0: a).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(cBOOL_PROP_72_pme, conjecture, ![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o, X3:a > $o]:(((^[X4:a]:(((((X1 @ X4)&(X2 @ X4))|((X2 @ X4)&(X3 @ X4)))|((X3 @ X4)&(X1 @ X4)))))=(^[X5:a]:(((((X1 @ X5)|(X2 @ X5))&((X2 @ X5)|(X3 @ X5)))&((X3 @ X5)|(X1 @ X5))))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', cBOOL_PROP_72_pme)).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~(![X1:a > $o, X2:a > $o, X3:a > $o]:(((^[Z0/* 9 */:a]:((((X1 @ Z0&X2 @ Z0)|(X2 @ Z0&X3 @ Z0))|(X3 @ Z0&X1 @ Z0))))=(^[Z0/* 8 */:a]:((((X1 @ Z0|X2 @ Z0)&(X2 @ Z0|X3 @ Z0))&(X3 @ Z0|X1 @ Z0))))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cBOOL_PROP_72_pme])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ((^[Z0/* 9 */:a]:((((epred1_0 @ Z0&epred2_0 @ Z0)|(epred2_0 @ Z0&epred3_0 @ Z0))|(epred3_0 @ Z0&epred1_0 @ Z0))))!=(^[Z0/* 8 */:a]:((((epred1_0 @ Z0|epred2_0 @ Z0)&(epred2_0 @ Z0|epred3_0 @ Z0))&(epred3_0 @ Z0|epred1_0 @ Z0))))), inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ((^[Z0/* 9 */:a]:(((((epred1_0 @ Z0)&(epred2_0 @ Z0))|((epred2_0 @ Z0)&(epred3_0 @ Z0)))|((epred3_0 @ Z0)&(epred1_0 @ Z0)))))!=(^[Z0/* 8 */:a]:(((((epred1_0 @ Z0)|(epred2_0 @ Z0))&((epred2_0 @ Z0)|(epred3_0 @ Z0)))&((epred3_0 @ Z0)|(epred1_0 @ Z0)))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ((((epred1_0 @ esk1_0)&(epred2_0 @ esk1_0))|((epred2_0 @ esk1_0)&(epred3_0 @ esk1_0))|((epred3_0 @ esk1_0)&(epred1_0 @ esk1_0)))<~>((((epred1_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred2_0 @ esk1_0))&((epred2_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred3_0 @ esk1_0)))&((epred3_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred1_0 @ esk1_0)))), inference(neg_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, (~((epred1_0 @ esk1_0))|~((epred3_0 @ esk1_0))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ((epred2_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred1_0 @ esk1_0)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, ((epred3_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred2_0 @ esk1_0)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (~((epred1_0 @ esk1_0))|~((epred2_0 @ esk1_0))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, (epred2_0 @ esk1_0), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5, c_0_6]), c_0_7])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, (~((epred3_0 @ esk1_0))|~((epred2_0 @ esk1_0))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, ((epred1_0 @ esk1_0)|(epred3_0 @ esk1_0)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, ~((epred1_0 @ esk1_0)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ~((epred3_0 @ esk1_0)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10, c_0_9])])).
% 0.22/0.49  thf(c_0_14, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_12]), c_0_13]), ['proof']).
% 0.22/0.49  # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.22/0.49  # Parsed axioms                        : 2
% 0.22/0.49  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Initial clauses                      : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Processed clauses                    : 37
% 0.22/0.49  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # ...subsumed                          : 23
% 0.22/0.49  # ...remaining for further processing  : 13
% 0.22/0.49  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Backward-subsumed                    : 2
% 0.22/0.49  # Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 0.22/0.49  # Generated clauses                    : 57
% 0.22/0.49  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 54
% 0.22/0.49  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Paramodulations                      : 7
% 0.22/0.49  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # NegExts                              : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Total rewrite steps                  : 4
% 0.22/0.49  # ...of those cached                   : 3
% 0.22/0.49  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49  # Current number of processed clauses  : 4
% 0.22/0.49  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.22/0.49  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.49  #    Negative unit clauses             : 3
% 0.22/0.49  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 19
% 0.22/0.49  # ...number of literals in the above   : 56
% 0.22/0.49  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Current number of archived clauses   : 9
% 0.22/0.49  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 25
% 0.22/0.49  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.22/0.49  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 25
% 0.22/0.49  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.22/0.49  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.22/0.49  # Condensation attempts                : 37
% 0.22/0.49  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/0.49  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 1859
% 0.22/0.49  # Search garbage collected termcells   : 76
% 0.22/0.49  
% 0.22/0.49  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.49  # User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.49  # System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.49  # Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.49  # Maximum resident set size: 1816 pages
% 0.22/0.49  
% 0.22/0.49  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.49  # User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.49  # System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.49  # Total time               : 0.008 s
% 0.22/0.49  # Maximum resident set size: 1720 pages
% 0.22/0.49  % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.22/0.49  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------