TSTP Solution File: ITP040^1 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : ITP040^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v7.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n020.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 22:16:01 EDT 2024
% Result : ContradictoryAxioms 0.16s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 13
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 7 unt; 10 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 13 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 50 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 0 &; 41 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 5 ( 4 usr)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 5 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 ^ 9 !; 0 ?; 9 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
denota231621370t_unit: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
oDE_a_c: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort3,type,
set_c: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort4,type,
c: $tType ).
thf(decl_24,type,
denota540094197_a_b_c: denota231621370t_unit > oDE_a_c > set_c ).
thf(decl_125,type,
static_FVO_a_c: oDE_a_c > set_c ).
thf(decl_153,type,
member_c: c > set_c > $o ).
thf(decl_154,type,
i: denota231621370t_unit ).
thf(decl_156,type,
oDEa: oDE_a_c ).
thf(decl_163,type,
i2: c ).
thf(conj_2,hypothesis,
~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_2) ).
thf(fact_0_ode__to__fvo,axiom,
! [X1: c,X2: denota231621370t_unit,X3: oDE_a_c] :
( ( member_c @ X1 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X2 @ X3 ) )
=> ( member_c @ X1 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X3 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_0_ode__to__fvo) ).
thf(conj_1,hypothesis,
member_c @ i2 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ i @ oDEa ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
thf(c_0_3,hypothesis,
~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[conj_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,plain,
! [X1049: c,X1050: denota231621370t_unit,X1051: oDE_a_c] :
( ~ ( member_c @ X1049 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X1050 @ X1051 ) )
| ( member_c @ X1049 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X1051 ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_0_ode__to__fvo])])]) ).
thf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X1: c,X2: denota231621370t_unit,X3: oDE_a_c] :
( ( member_c @ X1 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ X3 ) )
| ~ ( member_c @ X1 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ X2 @ X3 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
member_c @ i2 @ ( denota540094197_a_b_c @ i @ oDEa ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).
thf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
~ ( member_c @ i2 @ ( static_FVO_a_c @ oDEa ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.05/0.11 % Problem : ITP040^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.05/0.11 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.12/0.32 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % DateTime : Sat May 18 17:26:07 EDT 2024
% 0.12/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.43 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
% 0.16/0.48 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.16/0.48 # Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.16/0.48 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # full_lambda_4 with pid 13924 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Result found by full_lambda_4
% 0.16/0.48 # Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.16/0.48 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.48 # Search class: HGUSM-FFMM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.16/0.48 # partial match(3): HGHSM-FSLM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.16/0.48 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting ehoh_best2 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # ehoh_best2 with pid 13927 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Result found by ehoh_best2
% 0.16/0.48 # Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSLNHSA.
% 0.16/0.48 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_bool_8 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting additional_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting ehoh_best with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting sh2lt with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting full_lambda_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountTerms,hypos,1.5,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.48 # Search class: HGUSM-FFMM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.16/0.48 # partial match(3): HGHSM-FSLM31-DHSFFSBN
% 0.16/0.48 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.48 # Starting ehoh_best2 with 163s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.48 # Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% 0.16/0.48
% 0.16/0.48 # Proof found!
% 0.16/0.48 # SZS status ContradictoryAxioms
% 0.16/0.48 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.48 # Parsed axioms : 547
% 0.16/0.48 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 479
% 0.16/0.48 # Initial clauses : 115
% 0.16/0.48 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 19
% 0.16/0.48 # Initial clauses in saturation : 96
% 0.16/0.48 # Processed clauses : 44
% 0.16/0.48 # ...of these trivial : 5
% 0.16/0.48 # ...subsumed : 6
% 0.16/0.48 # ...remaining for further processing : 33
% 0.16/0.48 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 19
% 0.16/0.48 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Generated clauses : 52
% 0.16/0.48 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 19
% 0.16/0.48 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Paramodulations : 24
% 0.16/0.48 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # NegExts : 1
% 0.16/0.48 # Equation resolutions : 24
% 0.16/0.48 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Total rewrite steps : 19
% 0.16/0.48 # ...of those cached : 9
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.48 # Current number of processed clauses : 30
% 0.16/0.48 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 17
% 0.16/0.48 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.16/0.48 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.16/0.48 # Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.16/0.48 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 71
% 0.16/0.48 # ...number of literals in the above : 145
% 0.16/0.48 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 49
% 0.16/0.48 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 47
% 0.16/0.48 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.16/0.48 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.16/0.48 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.48 # Termbank termtop insertions : 16727
% 0.16/0.48 # Search garbage collected termcells : 5222
% 0.16/0.48
% 0.16/0.48 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.48 # User time : 0.013 s
% 0.16/0.48 # System time : 0.009 s
% 0.16/0.48 # Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.16/0.48 # Maximum resident set size: 3572 pages
% 0.16/0.48
% 0.16/0.48 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.48 # User time : 0.030 s
% 0.16/0.48 # System time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/0.48 # Total time : 0.042 s
% 0.16/0.48 # Maximum resident set size: 2932 pages
% 0.16/0.48 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.16/0.48 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------