TSTP Solution File: ITP227_1 by E-SAT---3.1.00

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem  : ITP227_1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E %s %d THM

% Computer : n013.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 22:20:05 EDT 2024

% Result   : Theorem 3.81s 1.92s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 3.81s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    6
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   13 (   3 unt;   4 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (  14 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   16 (  10   ~;   3   |;   3   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    1 (   1 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    0 (   0   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    3 (   3 usr;   3 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    0 (   0 sgn   0   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
    nat: $tType ).

tff(decl_1664,type,
    ma: nat ).

tff(decl_1665,type,
    mi: nat ).

tff(decl_1669,type,
    xa: nat ).

tff(conj_0,conjecture,
    ( ( xa != mi )
    & ( xa != ma ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).

tff(fact_0_False,axiom,
    ~ ( ( xa = mi )
      | ( xa = ma ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_0_False) ).

tff(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( xa != mi )
      & ( xa != ma ) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0])]) ).

tff(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( xa = mi )
    | ( xa = ma ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

tff(c_0_4,plain,
    ( ( xa != mi )
    & ( xa != ma ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_0_False])]) ).

tcf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( ( xa = mi )
    | ( xa = ma ) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

tcf(c_0_6,plain,
    xa != ma,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

tcf(c_0_7,plain,
    xa != mi,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem    : ITP227_1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.03/0.14  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.15/0.35  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35  % CPULimit   : 300
% 0.15/0.35  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.15/0.35  % DateTime   : Sat May 18 17:32:23 EDT 2024
% 0.15/0.35  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.21/0.49  Running first-order model finding
% 0.21/0.49  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
% 3.81/1.92  # Version: 3.1.0
% 3.81/1.92  # Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.81/1.92  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_1 with 900s (3) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 300s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # new_bool_3 with pid 28683 completed with status 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Result found by new_bool_3
% 3.81/1.92  # Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.81/1.92  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 3.81/1.92  # Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 3.81/1.92  # Scheduled 13 strats onto 3 cores with 900 seconds (900 total)
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 68s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_3 with 91s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting G-E--_207_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_S5PRR_S0Y with 68s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # G-E--_207_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_S5PRR_S0Y with pid 28754 completed with status 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Result found by G-E--_207_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_S5PRR_S0Y
% 3.81/1.92  # Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.81/1.92  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 3.81/1.92  # Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 3.81/1.92  # Scheduled 13 strats onto 3 cores with 900 seconds (900 total)
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 68s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting new_bool_3 with 91s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Starting G-E--_207_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_S5PRR_S0Y with 68s (1) cores
% 3.81/1.92  # Preprocessing time       : 0.065 s
% 3.81/1.92  
% 3.81/1.92  # Proof found!
% 3.81/1.92  # SZS status Theorem
% 3.81/1.92  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 3.81/1.92  # Parsed axioms                        : 12823
% 3.81/1.92  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 11064
% 3.81/1.92  # Initial clauses                      : 4197
% 3.81/1.92  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 161
% 3.81/1.92  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 4036
% 3.81/1.92  # Processed clauses                    : 3
% 3.81/1.92  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # ...remaining for further processing  : 2
% 3.81/1.92  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Generated clauses                    : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Paramodulations                      : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # NegExts                              : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # ...of those cached                   : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 3.81/1.92  # Current number of processed clauses  : 2
% 3.81/1.92  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 3.81/1.92  #    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 3.81/1.92  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4033
% 3.81/1.92  # ...number of literals in the above   : 17993
% 3.81/1.92  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 3.81/1.92  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 623556
% 3.81/1.92  # Search garbage collected termcells   : 160852
% 3.81/1.92  
% 3.81/1.92  # -------------------------------------------------
% 3.81/1.92  # User time                : 0.522 s
% 3.81/1.92  # System time              : 0.053 s
% 3.81/1.92  # Total time               : 0.574 s
% 3.81/1.92  # Maximum resident set size: 34300 pages
% 3.81/1.92  
% 3.81/1.92  # -------------------------------------------------
% 3.81/1.92  # User time                : 1.462 s
% 3.81/1.92  # System time              : 0.104 s
% 3.81/1.92  # Total time               : 1.566 s
% 3.81/1.92  # Maximum resident set size: 26856 pages
% 3.81/1.92  % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------