TSTP Solution File: SEV080^5 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : SEV080^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n023.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 04:07:32 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.81s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 5 unt; 5 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 57 ( 27 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 24 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 217 ( 21 ~; 31 |; 11 &; 149 @)
% ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 7 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 19 ( 19 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 41 ( 17 ^ 20 !; 4 ?; 41 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_22,type,
epred1_0: a > $o ).
thf(decl_23,type,
esk1_1: ( a > a ) > a ).
thf(decl_24,type,
esk2_1: ( a > a ) > a ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk3_2: ( a > a ) > a > a ).
thf(cEQP_1A_pme,conjecture,
! [X1: a > $o] :
? [X2: a > a] :
( ! [X3: a] :
( ( X1 @ X3 )
=> ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X3 ) ) )
& ! [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
=> ? [X5: a] :
( ( ^ [X3: a] :
( ( X1 @ X3 )
& ( X4
= ( X2 @ X3 ) ) ) )
= ( ^ [X6: a,X4: a] : ( X6 = X4 )
@ X5 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cEQP_1A_pme) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: a > $o] :
? [X2: a > a] :
( ! [X3: a] :
( ( X1 @ X3 )
=> ( X1 @ ( X2 @ X3 ) ) )
& ! [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
=> ? [X5: a] :
! [X12: a] :
( ( ( X1 @ X12 )
& ( X4
= ( X2 @ X12 ) ) )
<=> ( X5 = X12 ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cEQP_1A_pme])])]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X14: a > a,X17: a] :
( ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk2_1 @ X14 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) )
& ( ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( ( esk2_1 @ X14 )
!= ( X14 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) ) )
| ( X17
!= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) )
& ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( X17
= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) )
& ( ( ( esk2_1 @ X14 )
= ( X14 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) ) )
| ( X17
= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) )
& ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk2_1 @ X14 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X14 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) ) )
& ( ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( ( esk2_1 @ X14 )
!= ( X14 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) ) )
| ( X17
!= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X14 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) ) )
& ( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ( X17
= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X14 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) ) )
& ( ( ( esk2_1 @ X14 )
= ( X14 @ ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) ) )
| ( X17
= ( esk3_2 @ X14 @ X17 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X14 @ ( esk1_1 @ X14 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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: a,X2: a > a] :
( ( ( esk2_1 @ X2 )
= ( X2 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) ) )
| ( X3
= ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: a > a,X3: a] :
( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) )
| ( ( esk2_1 @ X2 )
!= ( X2 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) ) )
| ( X3
!= ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ( ( esk3_2
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0
@ ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) )
= ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) )
| ( epred1_0
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) ) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( epred1_0
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0
@ ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) ) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: a > a] :
( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk2_1 @ X2 ) )
| ( epred1_0 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: a,X2: a > a] :
( ( ( esk2_1 @ X2 )
= ( X2 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) ) )
| ( X3
= ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( epred1_0
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: a] :
( ( ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 )
= ( esk3_2
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0
@ X3 ) )
| ( ( esk3_2
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0
@ X3 )
= X3 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: a > a] :
( ( epred1_0 @ ( esk2_1 @ X2 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: a,X2: a > a] :
( ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) )
| ( ( esk2_1 @ X2 )
!= ( X2 @ ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) ) )
| ( X3
!= ( esk3_2 @ X2 @ X3 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ( esk3_2
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0
@ ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) )
= ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_10])]) ).
thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( epred1_0
@ ( esk2_1
@ ^ [Z0: a] : Z0 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SEV080^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sun May 19 19:16:38 EDT 2024
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.19/0.46 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
% 0.81/0.58 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.81/0.58 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.81/0.58 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # post_as_ho12 with pid 32423 completed with status 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.81/0.58 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.81/0.58 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.81/0.58 # Search class: HGHSF-FFSF21-SSSFFMNN
% 0.81/0.58 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho5 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # post_as_ho5 with pid 32432 completed with status 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Result found by post_as_ho5
% 0.81/0.58 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.81/0.58 # Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.81/0.58 # Search class: HGHSF-FFSF21-SSSFFMNN
% 0.81/0.58 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.81/0.58 # Starting post_as_ho5 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.81/0.58 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.81/0.58 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.81/0.58
% 0.81/0.58 # Proof found!
% 0.81/0.58 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.81/0.58 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.81/0.58 # Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.81/0.58 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Initial clauses : 9
% 0.81/0.58 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.81/0.58 # Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.81/0.58 # Processed clauses : 63
% 0.81/0.58 # ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.81/0.58 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.81/0.58 # ...remaining for further processing : 59
% 0.81/0.58 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 20
% 0.81/0.58 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Backward-subsumed : 4
% 0.81/0.58 # Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.81/0.58 # Generated clauses : 714
% 0.81/0.58 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 544
% 0.81/0.58 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.81/0.58 # Paramodulations : 665
% 0.81/0.58 # Factorizations : 5
% 0.81/0.58 # NegExts : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Equation resolutions : 21
% 0.81/0.58 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Total rewrite steps : 151
% 0.81/0.58 # ...of those cached : 144
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.81/0.58 # Current number of processed clauses : 45
% 0.81/0.58 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.81/0.58 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Non-unit-clauses : 36
% 0.81/0.58 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 480
% 0.81/0.58 # ...number of literals in the above : 2402
% 0.81/0.58 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Current number of archived clauses : 14
% 0.81/0.58 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 264
% 0.81/0.58 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 75
% 0.81/0.58 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.81/0.58 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 40
% 0.81/0.58 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # BW rewrite match attempts : 61
% 0.81/0.58 # BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.81/0.58 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.81/0.58 # Termbank termtop insertions : 301863
% 0.81/0.58 # Search garbage collected termcells : 223
% 0.81/0.58
% 0.81/0.58 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.81/0.58 # User time : 0.099 s
% 0.81/0.58 # System time : 0.008 s
% 0.81/0.58 # Total time : 0.106 s
% 0.81/0.58 # Maximum resident set size: 1712 pages
% 0.81/0.58
% 0.81/0.58 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.81/0.58 # User time : 0.099 s
% 0.81/0.58 # System time : 0.011 s
% 0.81/0.58 # Total time : 0.110 s
% 0.81/0.58 # Maximum resident set size: 1716 pages
% 0.81/0.58 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.81/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------