TSTP Solution File: COL079-2 by E---3.1.00

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.1.00
% Problem  : COL079-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E %s %d THM

% Computer : n006.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 : Sat May  4 07:28:16 EDT 2024

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 18.90s 2.86s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 18.90s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   15
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   26 (  19 unt;   0 nHn;  11 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   33 (  32 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   53 (   6 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(extensionality2,axiom,
    ( X1 = X2
    | apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.9XlQh82DFv/E---3.1_891.p',extensionality2) ).

cnf(k_definition,axiom,
    apply(k(X1),X2) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.9XlQh82DFv/E---3.1_891.p',k_definition) ).

cnf(abstraction,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3) = apply(apply(X1,k(X3)),apply(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.9XlQh82DFv/E---3.1_891.p',abstraction) ).

cnf(prove_TRC2a,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.9XlQh82DFv/E---3.1_891.p',prove_TRC2a) ).

cnf(c_0_4,plain,
    ( X1 = X2
    | apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[extensionality2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    ( X1 = X2
    | apply(X1,n(X1,X2)) != apply(X2,n(X1,X2)) ),
    c_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
    apply(k(X1),X2) = X1,
    k_definition ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3) = apply(apply(X1,k(X3)),apply(X2,X3)),
    abstraction ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( k(X1) = X2
    | apply(X2,n(k(X1),X2)) != X1 ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,k(X1)),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( k(X1) = apply(apply(abstraction,k(X2)),X3)
    | apply(X2,apply(X3,n(k(X1),apply(apply(abstraction,k(X2)),X3)))) != X1 ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    apply(apply(abstraction,k(k(X1))),X2) = k(X1),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_6])]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    apply(abstraction,k(k(X1))) = k(k(X1)),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_11])]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,abstraction),X1),k(X2)) = k(X2),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_12]),c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    apply(apply(X1,k(apply(X2,X3))),apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X4),X2),X3)) = apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),apply(X4,k(X3))),apply(X2,X3)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(apply(abstraction,abstraction),X1)),X2),X3) = X3,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_13]),c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),k(X2)),X3) = apply(apply(X1,k(X3)),X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    apply(apply(X1,k(apply(X2,X3))),X3) = apply(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1)),X2),X3),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_13]),c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,plain,
    apply(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3) = apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),X3),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,plain,
    ( apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2) = X3
    | apply(apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),n(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3)) != apply(X3,n(apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2),X3)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_18]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,plain,
    apply(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2) = apply(apply(abstraction,X1),X2),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_TRC2a]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    ( apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))) = X2
    | apply(apply(abstraction,X1),n(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2)) != apply(X2,n(apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))),X2)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,b))) != apply(abstraction,b),
    c_0_21 ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,apply(abstraction,X1))) = apply(abstraction,X1),
    inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_22]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.12  % Problem    : COL079-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.2.0.
% 0.10/0.14  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.15/0.33  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.33  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.33  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.33  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.33  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.33  % CPULimit   : 300
% 0.15/0.33  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.15/0.33  % DateTime   : Fri May  3 11:33:34 EDT 2024
% 0.18/0.33  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.19/0.46  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.19/0.46  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.9XlQh82DFv/E---3.1_891.p
% 18.90/2.86  # Version: 3.1.0
% 18.90/2.86  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 18.90/2.86  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 981 completed with status 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 18.90/2.86  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 18.90/2.86  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # No SInE strategy applied
% 18.90/2.86  # Search class: FHUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 18.90/2.86  # Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting U----_211g_01_C07_19_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 811s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting sh5l with 136s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # U----_211g_01_C07_19_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 985 completed with status 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Result found by U----_211g_01_C07_19_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 18.90/2.86  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 18.90/2.86  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # No SInE strategy applied
% 18.90/2.86  # Search class: FHUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 18.90/2.86  # Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 18.90/2.86  # Starting U----_211g_01_C07_19_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 811s (1) cores
% 18.90/2.86  # Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 18.90/2.86  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 18.90/2.86  
% 18.90/2.86  # Proof found!
% 18.90/2.86  # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 18.90/2.86  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 18.90/2.86  # Parsed axioms                        : 4
% 18.90/2.86  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Initial clauses                      : 4
% 18.90/2.86  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 4
% 18.90/2.86  # Processed clauses                    : 4225
% 18.90/2.86  # ...of these trivial                  : 385
% 18.90/2.86  # ...subsumed                          : 3034
% 18.90/2.86  # ...remaining for further processing  : 806
% 18.90/2.86  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 3530
% 18.90/2.86  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Backward-subsumed                    : 8
% 18.90/2.86  # Backward-rewritten                   : 147
% 18.90/2.86  # Generated clauses                    : 121736
% 18.90/2.86  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 106510
% 18.90/2.86  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Paramodulations                      : 118196
% 18.90/2.86  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # NegExts                              : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Equation resolutions                 : 3540
% 18.90/2.86  # Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Total rewrite steps                  : 169906
% 18.90/2.86  # ...of those cached                   : 142834
% 18.90/2.86  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 18.90/2.86  # Current number of processed clauses  : 580
% 18.90/2.86  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 442
% 18.90/2.86  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 49
% 18.90/2.86  #    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 18.90/2.86  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 89
% 18.90/2.86  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 101346
% 18.90/2.86  # ...number of literals in the above   : 123854
% 18.90/2.86  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Current number of archived clauses   : 159
% 18.90/2.86  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 7408
% 18.90/2.86  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7194
% 18.90/2.86  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2661
% 18.90/2.86  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1146
% 18.90/2.86  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 48180
% 18.90/2.86  # BW rewrite match successes           : 317
% 18.90/2.86  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 18.90/2.86  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 5715221
% 18.90/2.86  # Search garbage collected termcells   : 5
% 18.90/2.86  
% 18.90/2.86  # -------------------------------------------------
% 18.90/2.86  # User time                : 2.236 s
% 18.90/2.86  # System time              : 0.097 s
% 18.90/2.86  # Total time               : 2.333 s
% 18.90/2.86  # Maximum resident set size: 1576 pages
% 18.90/2.86  
% 18.90/2.86  # -------------------------------------------------
% 18.90/2.86  # User time                : 11.479 s
% 18.90/2.86  # System time              : 0.188 s
% 18.90/2.86  # Total time               : 11.667 s
% 18.90/2.86  # Maximum resident set size: 1684 pages
% 18.90/2.86  % E---3.1 exiting
% 18.90/2.87  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------