TSTP Solution File: CSR119^3 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : CSR119^3 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v5.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n024.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 19:16:30 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.90s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.90s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 4 unt; 7 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 63 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 157 ( 20 ~; 18 |; 10 &; 109 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 5 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 9 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 ^ 4 !; 2 ?; 6 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_178,type,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: $i > $o > $o ).
thf(decl_1234,type,
lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_1451,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1452,type,
lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1453,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1454,type,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_1455,type,
n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(ax,axiom,
( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i )
@ ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax) ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X340: $i] : ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X340 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
thf(c_0_2,axiom,
( ( ~ ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X340: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X340 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X340 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con])]) ).
thf(c_0_4,plain,
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X2283: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2283 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2283 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2283 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2283 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
( ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]) ).
thf(c_0_15,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.02/0.09 % Problem : CSR119^3 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v5.3.0.
% 0.02/0.10 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.10/0.29 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.10/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.10/0.29 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.29 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.29 % DateTime : Sun May 19 01:28:07 EDT 2024
% 0.10/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.40 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.90/0.67 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.90/0.67 # Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHFA.
% 0.90/0.67 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting lpo1_def_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # sh5l with pid 28532 completed with status 0
% 0.90/0.67 # Result found by sh5l
% 0.90/0.67 # Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHFA.
% 0.90/0.67 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.90/0.67 # Search class: HGHSM-SMLM31-MHFFFFBN
% 0.90/0.67 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting sh3 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # sh3 with pid 28535 completed with status 0
% 0.90/0.67 # Result found by sh3
% 0.90/0.67 # Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHFA.
% 0.90/0.67 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.90/0.67 # Search class: HGHSM-SMLM31-MHFFFFBN
% 0.90/0.67 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.90/0.67 # Starting sh3 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.90/0.67 # Preprocessing time : 0.030 s
% 0.90/0.67 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.90/0.67
% 0.90/0.67 # Proof found!
% 0.90/0.67 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.90/0.67 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.90/0.68 # Parsed axioms : 5014
% 0.90/0.68 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3073
% 0.90/0.68 # Initial clauses : 2827
% 0.90/0.68 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 180
% 0.90/0.68 # Initial clauses in saturation : 2647
% 0.90/0.68 # Processed clauses : 17
% 0.90/0.68 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.90/0.68 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # Generated clauses : 2
% 0.90/0.68 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.90/0.68 # Paramodulations : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # NegExts : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.90/0.68 # ...of those cached : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.90/0.68 # Current number of processed clauses : 12
% 0.90/0.68 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.90/0.68 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.90/0.68 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2631
% 0.90/0.68 # ...number of literals in the above : 5797
% 0.90/0.68 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.90/0.68 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 17
% 0.90/0.68 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.90/0.68 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.90/0.68 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.90/0.68 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.90/0.68 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.90/0.68 # Termbank termtop insertions : 160693
% 0.90/0.68 # Search garbage collected termcells : 36273
% 0.90/0.68
% 0.90/0.68 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.90/0.68 # User time : 0.165 s
% 0.90/0.68 # System time : 0.021 s
% 0.90/0.68 # Total time : 0.186 s
% 0.90/0.68 # Maximum resident set size: 13620 pages
% 0.90/0.68
% 0.90/0.68 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.90/0.68 # User time : 0.244 s
% 0.90/0.68 # System time : 0.024 s
% 0.90/0.68 # Total time : 0.268 s
% 0.90/0.68 # Maximum resident set size: 5796 pages
% 0.90/0.68 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.90/0.68 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------