TSTP Solution File: SYO017_8 by E-SAT---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem : SYO017_8 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n007.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 08:50:44 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.11s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.07 % Problem : SYO017_8 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.07/0.26 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.26 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.26 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.26 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.07/0.26 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.07/0.26 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.26 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.26 % DateTime : Mon May 20 09:08:22 EDT 2024
% 0.07/0.26 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running first-order model finding
% 0.11/0.38 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
% 0.11/0.39 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.11/0.39 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.39 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # new_bool_3 with pid 31183 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.11/0.39 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.39 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.39 # Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.39 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 31187 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.11/0.39 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.39 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.39 # Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.39 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.39 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.39 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.39 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.11/0.39
% 0.11/0.39 # Proof found!
% 0.11/0.39 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.39 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.11/0.39 tff(decl_22, type, h: $o > $o).
% 0.11/0.39 fof(conj, conjecture, (h((h($true)<=>h($false)))<=>h($false)), file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', conj)).
% 0.11/0.39 fof(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~((((~((h($true)<=>h($false)))|h($true))&((h($true)<=>h($false))|h($false)))<=>h($false))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj])])).
% 0.11/0.39 fof(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ((((((~h($true)|~h($false)|(~h($true)|h($false))|~h($false))&(h($true)|h($false)|(~h($true)|h($false))|~h($false)))&(~h($false)|(~h($true)|h($false))|~h($false)))&(((~h($true)|~h($false)|(~h($false)|h($true))|~h($false))&(h($true)|h($false)|(~h($false)|h($true))|~h($false)))&(~h($false)|(~h($false)|h($true))|~h($false))))&(((~h($true)|~h($false)|~h($true)|~h($false))&(h($true)|h($false)|~h($true)|~h($false)))&(~h($false)|~h($true)|~h($false))))&(((~h($true)|~h($false)|h($true)|h($false))&(h($true)|h($false)|h($true)|h($false)))&((~h($true)|h($false)|h($false)|h($false))&(~h($false)|h($true)|h($false)|h($false))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, (h($true)|~h($false)|~h($false)|~h($false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, (h($true)|h($false)|h($true)|h($false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, (~h($false)|~h($true)|~h($false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, (h($true)|~h($false)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, (h($true)|h($false)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (h($false)|h($false)|h($false)|~h($true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, (~h($true)|~h($false)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, (h($true)), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_7])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, (h($false)|~h($true)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, (~h($false)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9, c_0_10])])).
% 0.11/0.39 cnf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_10])]), c_0_12]), ['proof']).
% 0.11/0.39 # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.11/0.39 # Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # Initial clauses : 13
% 0.11/0.39 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 8
% 0.11/0.39 # Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.11/0.39 # Processed clauses : 6
% 0.11/0.39 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.11/0.39 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Generated clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # Paramodulations : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.11/0.39 # ...of those cached : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.39 # Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.39 # ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.11/0.39 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.11/0.39 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.39 # Termbank termtop insertions : 704
% 0.11/0.39 # Search garbage collected termcells : 137
% 0.11/0.39
% 0.11/0.39 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.39 # User time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.39 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.11/0.39 # Total time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.39 # Maximum resident set size: 1608 pages
% 0.11/0.39
% 0.11/0.39 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.39 # User time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.39 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.39 # Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.39 # Maximum resident set size: 1688 pages
% 0.11/0.39 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------