TSTP Solution File: SEU937^5 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : SEU937^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n009.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 03:30:54 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 6 unt; 9 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 28 ( 27 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 62 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 5 &; 38 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Number of types : 3 ( 3 usr)
% Number of type conns : 8 ( 8 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 8 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 0 ^ 26 !; 0 ?; 26 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
b: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort3,type,
c: $tType ).
thf(decl_22,type,
esk1_0: b > a ).
thf(decl_23,type,
esk2_0: c > b ).
thf(decl_24,type,
esk3_0: c ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk4_0: c ).
thf(decl_26,type,
esk5_1: b > c ).
thf(decl_27,type,
esk6_1: a > b ).
thf(cTHM48_pme,conjecture,
! [X1: b > a,X2: c > b] :
( ( ! [X3: b,X4: b] :
( ( ( X1 @ X3 )
= ( X1 @ X4 ) )
=> ( X3 = X4 ) )
& ! [X5: c,X6: c] :
( ( ( X2 @ X5 )
= ( X2 @ X6 ) )
=> ( X5 = X6 ) ) )
=> ! [X7: c,X8: c] :
( ( ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X7 ) )
= ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X8 ) ) )
=> ( X7 = X8 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cTHM48_pme) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: b > a,X2: c > b] :
( ( ! [X3: b,X4: b] :
( ( ( X1 @ X3 )
= ( X1 @ X4 ) )
=> ( X3 = X4 ) )
& ! [X5: c,X6: c] :
( ( ( X2 @ X5 )
= ( X2 @ X6 ) )
=> ( X5 = X6 ) ) )
=> ! [X7: c,X8: c] :
( ( ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X7 ) )
= ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X8 ) ) )
=> ( X7 = X8 ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM48_pme]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X19: b,X20: b,X21: c,X22: c] :
( ( ( ( esk1_0 @ X19 )
!= ( esk1_0 @ X20 ) )
| ( X19 = X20 ) )
& ( ( ( esk2_0 @ X21 )
!= ( esk2_0 @ X22 ) )
| ( X21 = X22 ) )
& ( ( esk1_0 @ ( esk2_0 @ esk3_0 ) )
= ( esk1_0 @ ( esk2_0 @ esk4_0 ) ) )
& ( esk3_0 != esk4_0 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: b,X4: b] :
( ( X3 = X4 )
| ( ( esk1_0 @ X3 )
!= ( esk1_0 @ X4 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X5: c,X6: c] :
( ( X5 = X6 )
| ( ( esk2_0 @ X5 )
!= ( esk2_0 @ X6 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: b] :
( ( esk6_1 @ ( esk1_0 @ X3 ) )
= X3 ),
inference(recognize_injectivity,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( esk1_0 @ ( esk2_0 @ esk3_0 ) )
= ( esk1_0 @ ( esk2_0 @ esk4_0 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X5: c] :
( ( esk5_1 @ ( esk2_0 @ X5 ) )
= X5 ),
inference(recognize_injectivity,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ( esk2_0 @ esk3_0 )
= ( esk2_0 @ esk4_0 ) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 != esk4_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_7]),c_0_9]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SEU937^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun May 19 17:10:37 EDT 2024
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.48 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.48 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.21/0.50 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # new_bool_9 with pid 5031 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: HUUPS-FFSF11-SSSFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # partial match(2): HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # post_as_ho12 with pid 5038 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: HUUPS-FFSF11-SSSFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # partial match(2): HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 163s (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 : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Processed clauses : 9
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 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 : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Generated clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Paramodulations : 2
% 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 : 3
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of those cached : 0
% 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 : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 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 : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Termbank termtop insertions : 379
% 0.21/0.50 # Search garbage collected termcells : 176
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1760 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1720 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.21/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------