TSTP Solution File: ALG421-1 by E---3.1.00

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.1.00
% Problem  : ALG421-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E %s %d THM

% Computer : n019.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 : Mon May 20 18:06:21 EDT 2024

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.36s 0.66s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.36s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   18 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;  11 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   24 (  13 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   10 (  10 usr;   5 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   25 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_poly__power_0,axiom,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),X3,X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_poly__power_0) ).

cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
    c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_s____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_u____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_r____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).

cnf(cls_u_0,axiom,
    c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_r____,c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)) = c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(v_s____,v_u____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_u_0) ).

cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1,axiom,
    class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1) ).

cnf(cls_poly__mult_0,axiom,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X4,X1),X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_poly__mult_0) ).

cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0,axiom,
    class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),X3,X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_poly__power_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_s____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_u____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_r____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),X3,X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1) ),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
    c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_r____,c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)) = c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(v_s____,v_u____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
    cls_u_0 ).

cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
    class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1 ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_s____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_u____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_r____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_r____,X1,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_s____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(v_s____,v_u____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),X1,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X4,X1),X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_poly__mult_0]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
    c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_s____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_u____,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(v_s____,v_u____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    ( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(X2,X3,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X4,X1) = c_HOL_Otimes__class_Otimes(c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,X4,X1),c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X4,X1),X1)
    | ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1) ),
    c_0_13 ).

cnf(c_0_16,axiom,
    class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
    clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0 ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem    : ALG421-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.07/0.14  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.13/0.35  % Computer : n019.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   : Sat May 18 22:59:08 EDT 2024
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.21/0.48  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.48  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --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
% 0.36/0.66  # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.36/0.66  # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.66  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 27563 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.36/0.66  # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.66  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.36/0.66  # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.66  # Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 27572 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Result found by G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.36/0.66  # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.66  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.36/0.66  # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.66  # Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.66  # Preprocessing time       : 0.011 s
% 0.36/0.66  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.36/0.66  
% 0.36/0.66  # Proof found!
% 0.36/0.66  # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.36/0.66  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.36/0.66  # Parsed axioms                        : 846
% 0.36/0.66  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Initial clauses                      : 846
% 0.36/0.66  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 3
% 0.36/0.66  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 843
% 0.36/0.66  # Processed clauses                    : 1682
% 0.36/0.66  # ...of these trivial                  : 104
% 0.36/0.66  # ...subsumed                          : 421
% 0.36/0.66  # ...remaining for further processing  : 1157
% 0.36/0.66  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 53
% 0.36/0.66  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Backward-subsumed                    : 6
% 0.36/0.66  # Backward-rewritten                   : 10
% 0.36/0.66  # Generated clauses                    : 2649
% 0.36/0.66  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1660
% 0.36/0.66  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Paramodulations                      : 2593
% 0.36/0.66  # Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.36/0.66  # NegExts                              : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Equation resolutions                 : 54
% 0.36/0.66  # Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Total rewrite steps                  : 2366
% 0.36/0.66  # ...of those cached                   : 1899
% 0.36/0.66  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.36/0.66  # Current number of processed clauses  : 438
% 0.36/0.66  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 185
% 0.36/0.66  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 8
% 0.36/0.66  #    Negative unit clauses             : 22
% 0.36/0.66  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 223
% 0.36/0.66  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1440
% 0.36/0.66  # ...number of literals in the above   : 2885
% 0.36/0.66  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Current number of archived clauses   : 721
% 0.36/0.66  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 82116
% 0.36/0.66  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 46953
% 0.36/0.66  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 223
% 0.36/0.66  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 534
% 0.36/0.66  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 482
% 0.36/0.66  # BW rewrite match successes           : 110
% 0.36/0.66  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.36/0.66  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 63636
% 0.36/0.66  # Search garbage collected termcells   : 1521
% 0.36/0.66  
% 0.36/0.66  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.66  # User time                : 0.123 s
% 0.36/0.66  # System time              : 0.016 s
% 0.36/0.66  # Total time               : 0.139 s
% 0.36/0.66  # Maximum resident set size: 3368 pages
% 0.36/0.66  
% 0.36/0.66  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.66  # User time                : 0.603 s
% 0.36/0.66  # System time              : 0.043 s
% 0.36/0.66  # Total time               : 0.647 s
% 0.36/0.66  # Maximum resident set size: 2264 pages
% 0.36/0.66  % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.36/0.66  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------