TSTP Solution File: SYO016^1 by E---3.1.00

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.1.00
% Problem  : SYO016^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.7.0.
% 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 08:44:14 EDT 2024

% Result   : Theorem 0.14s 0.40s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.09  % Problem    : SYO016^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.10  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.09/0.29  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.29  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.29  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.29  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.09/0.29  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.09/0.29  % CPULimit   : 300
% 0.09/0.29  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.09/0.29  % DateTime   : Mon May 20 09:51:52 EDT 2024
% 0.09/0.29  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.14/0.39  Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.39  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
% 0.14/0.40  # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.14/0.40  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.14/0.40  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting post_as_ho5 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting ho_unfolding_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # post_as_ho5 with pid 25310 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Result found by post_as_ho5
% 0.14/0.40  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.14/0.40  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting post_as_ho5 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1.0,0,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.14/0.40  # Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SSFFMFNN
% 0.14/0.40  # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting new_ho_10 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # new_ho_10 with pid 25313 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.14/0.40  # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.14/0.40  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting post_as_ho5 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,,true,1.0,0,2,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.14/0.40  # Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SSFFMFNN
% 0.14/0.40  # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.40  # Starting new_ho_10 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40  # Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.40  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.40  
% 0.14/0.40  # Proof found!
% 0.14/0.40  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.40  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.14/0.40  thf(decl_22, type, leibeq: $o > $o > $o).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(decl_23, type, h: $o > $o).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(decl_24, type, epred1_0: $o > $o).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(leibeq, axiom, ((leibeq)=(^[X1:$o, X2:$o]:(![X3:$o > $o]:(((X3 @ ((X1)))=>(X3 @ ((X2)))))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', leibeq)).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(conj, conjecture, (leibeq @ ((h @ ((leibeq @ ((h @ (($true)))) @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))) @ ((h @ (~($true))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', conj)).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_2, plain, ((leibeq)=(^[Z0/* 19 */:$o, Z1:$o]:(![X3:$o > $o]:(((X3 @ ((Z0)))=>(X3 @ ((Z1)))))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[leibeq])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ~(![X5:$o > $o]:(((X5 @ ((h @ (![X4:$o > $o]:((X4 @ ((h @ $true))=>X4 @ ((h @ (~($true))))))))))=>(X5 @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))), inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj]), c_0_2])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ((((?[X4:$o > $o]:(((X4 @ ((h @ $true)))&~(X4 @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))|~(h @ $true)|(epred1_0 @ $true))&(![X4:$o > $o]:((~(X4 @ ((h @ $true)))|(X4 @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))|~(h @ $false)|(epred1_0 @ $true)))&((?[X4:$o > $o]:(((X4 @ ((h @ $true)))&~(X4 @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))|(h @ $true)|(epred1_0 @ $false))&(![X4:$o > $o]:((~(X4 @ ((h @ $true)))|(X4 @ ((h @ (~($true)))))))|(h @ $false)|(epred1_0 @ $false))))&(((((((($true)|~($true)|(($true)|~($true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~($true)|(($true)|~($true))))&((($true)|~(h @ $true)|(($true)|~($true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~(h @ $true)|(($true)|~($true)))))&(~(epred1_0 @ $false)|(($true)|~($true))))&((((($true)|~($true)|((h @ $false)|~($true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~($true)|((h @ $false)|~($true))))&((($true)|~(h @ $true)|((h @ $false)|~($true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~(h @ $true)|((h @ $false)|~($true)))))&(~(epred1_0 @ $false)|((h @ $false)|~($true)))))&(((((($true)|~($true)|(($true)|(h @ $true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~($true)|(($true)|(h @ $true))))&((($true)|~(h @ $true)|(($true)|(h @ $true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~(h @ $true)|(($true)|(h @ $true)))))&(~(epred1_0 @ $false)|(($true)|(h @ $true))))&((((($true)|~($true)|((h @ $false)|(h @ $true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~($true)|((h @ $false)|(h @ $true))))&((($true)|~(h @ $true)|((h @ $false)|(h @ $true)))&(~(h @ $false)|~(h @ $true)|((h @ $false)|(h @ $true)))))&(~(epred1_0 @ $false)|((h @ $false)|(h @ $true))))))&((((($true)|~($true)|~(epred1_0 @ $true))&(~(h @ $false)|~($true)|~(epred1_0 @ $true)))&((($true)|~(h @ $true)|~(epred1_0 @ $true))&(~(h @ $false)|~(h @ $true)|~(epred1_0 @ $true))))&(~(epred1_0 @ $false)|~(epred1_0 @ $true))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, (~((h @ (~($true))))|~(($true))|~((epred1_0 @ (($true))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ((epred1_0 @ (($true)))|~((h @ (~($true))))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, (~((epred1_0 @ (($true))))|~((h @ (~($true))))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, ((h @ (~($true)))|~((epred1_0 @ (~($true))))|~(($true))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, ((h @ (~($true)))|(epred1_0 @ (~($true)))), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, ~((h @ (~($true)))), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_7])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, ((h @ (~($true)))|~((epred1_0 @ (~($true))))), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, (epred1_0 @ (~($true))), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9, c_0_10])).
% 0.14/0.40  thf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_12])]), c_0_10]), ['proof']).
% 0.14/0.40  # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.14/0.40  # Parsed axioms                        : 4
% 0.14/0.40  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # Initial clauses                      : 29
% 0.14/0.40  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 20
% 0.14/0.40  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 9
% 0.14/0.40  # Processed clauses                    : 9
% 0.14/0.40  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # ...remaining for further processing  : 8
% 0.14/0.40  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Backward-subsumed                    : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # Generated clauses                    : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # NegExts                              : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Total rewrite steps                  : 3
% 0.14/0.40  # ...of those cached                   : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40  # Current number of processed clauses  : 4
% 0.14/0.40  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 1
% 0.14/0.40  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.40  #    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.14/0.40  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.40  # ...number of literals in the above   : 6
% 0.14/0.40  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.14/0.40  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.14/0.40  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.14/0.40  # Condensation attempts                : 9
% 0.14/0.40  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.14/0.40  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 942
% 0.14/0.40  # Search garbage collected termcells   : 212
% 0.14/0.40  
% 0.14/0.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.40  # User time                : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.40  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.40  # Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.40  # Maximum resident set size: 1812 pages
% 0.14/0.40  
% 0.14/0.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.40  # User time                : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.40  # System time              : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.40  # Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.40  # Maximum resident set size: 1700 pages
% 0.14/0.40  % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.14/0.40  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------