TSTP Solution File: SWV133+1 by E-SAT---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem : SWV133+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n020.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 05:33:22 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 56 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 53 ( 13 ~; 7 |; 29 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(gauss_array_0003,conjecture,
( ( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',gauss_array_0003) ).
fof(transitivity_leq,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( leq(X1,X2)
& leq(X2,X3) )
=> leq(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',transitivity_leq) ).
fof(leq_gt1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( gt(X2,X1)
=> leq(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_gt1) ).
fof(gt_2_0,axiom,
gt(n2,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',gt_2_0) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[gauss_array_0003])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X29,X30,X31] :
( ~ leq(X29,X30)
| ~ leq(X30,X31)
| leq(X29,X31) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[transitivity_leq])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& ~ leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X32,X33] :
( ~ gt(X33,X32)
| leq(X32,X33) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_gt1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( leq(X1,X3)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| ~ leq(X2,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
leq(n2,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( leq(X2,X1)
| ~ gt(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
gt(n2,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[gt_2_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ leq(n0,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( leq(X1,pv1325)
| ~ leq(X1,n2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
leq(n0,n2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11 % Problem : SWV133+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Sun May 19 07:21:23 EDT 2024
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running first-order model finding
% 0.19/0.46 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
% 0.19/0.48 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.19/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # new_bool_3 with pid 2768 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.48 # Search class: FGUSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.48 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 2771 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.19/0.48 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.48 # Search class: FGUSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.48 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.48 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 # Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.19/0.48 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.48
% 0.19/0.48 # Proof found!
% 0.19/0.48 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.48 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/0.48 # Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.19/0.48 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 29
% 0.19/0.48 # Initial clauses : 68
% 0.19/0.48 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Initial clauses in saturation : 68
% 0.19/0.48 # Processed clauses : 277
% 0.19/0.48 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # ...subsumed : 59
% 0.19/0.48 # ...remaining for further processing : 218
% 0.19/0.48 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Generated clauses : 344
% 0.19/0.48 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 252
% 0.19/0.48 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Paramodulations : 342
% 0.19/0.48 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.19/0.48 # NegExts : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Total rewrite steps : 251
% 0.19/0.48 # ...of those cached : 215
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 # Current number of processed clauses : 150
% 0.19/0.48 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 70
% 0.19/0.48 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/0.49 # Negative unit clauses : 48
% 0.19/0.49 # Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 0.19/0.49 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 111
% 0.19/0.49 # ...number of literals in the above : 266
% 0.19/0.49 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/0.49 # Current number of archived clauses : 68
% 0.19/0.49 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 142
% 0.19/0.49 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 92
% 0.19/0.49 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.19/0.49 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 237
% 0.19/0.49 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/0.49 # BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.19/0.49 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.19/0.49 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.49 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/0.49 # Termbank termtop insertions : 6535
% 0.19/0.49 # Search garbage collected termcells : 639
% 0.19/0.49
% 0.19/0.49 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.49 # User time : 0.013 s
% 0.19/0.49 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.19/0.49 # Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.19/0.49 # Maximum resident set size: 1904 pages
% 0.19/0.49
% 0.19/0.49 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.49 # User time : 0.016 s
% 0.19/0.49 # System time : 0.005 s
% 0.19/0.49 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.19/0.49 # Maximum resident set size: 1808 pages
% 0.19/0.49 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------