TSTP Solution File: LCL130-1 by E---3.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1
% Problem : LCL130-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n031.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 : 2400s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Oct 10 18:11:39 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 11
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 26 ( 0 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 34 ( 1 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
( is_a_theorem(X2)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.yRDhMGbQDB/E---3.1_2174.p',condensed_detachment) ).
cnf(p_4,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X4),equivalent(X3,X4)))),X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.yRDhMGbQDB/E---3.1_2174.p',p_4) ).
cnf(prove_lg_2,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(a,equivalent(a,equivalent(equivalent(b,c),equivalent(equivalent(b,e),equivalent(c,e)))))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.yRDhMGbQDB/E---3.1_2174.p',prove_lg_2) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
( is_a_theorem(X2)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
condensed_detachment ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X4),equivalent(X3,X4)))),X1)),
p_4 ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X4),equivalent(X3,X4))))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X1,X3),equivalent(X2,X3))),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X5),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X6),equivalent(X5,X6))))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X1,X3),equivalent(X2,X3)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X3,X2)))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(a,equivalent(a,equivalent(equivalent(b,c),equivalent(equivalent(b,e),equivalent(c,e)))))),
prove_lg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X3,X2))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X3,X1)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(a,equivalent(equivalent(b,c),equivalent(equivalent(b,e),equivalent(c,e))))))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,a)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(b,c),equivalent(equivalent(b,e),equivalent(c,e)))),a))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,a)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(a,a)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,a)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_4]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.09 % Problem : LCL130-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.07/0.10 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.10/0.29 % Computer : n031.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 : 2400
% 0.10/0.29 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.29 % DateTime : Mon Oct 2 13:13:43 EDT 2023
% 0.10/0.29 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.39 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.yRDhMGbQDB/E---3.1_2174.p
% 0.14/0.40 # Version: 3.1pre001
% 0.14/0.40 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.40 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 2253 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.14/0.40 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.40 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.40 # Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.40 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S0Y with 811s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting U----_206c_00_C07_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with pid 2264 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00
% 0.14/0.40 # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.40 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.40 # Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.40 # Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S0Y with 811s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting U----_206c_00_C07_23_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.40 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.40
% 0.14/0.40 # Proof found!
% 0.14/0.40 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.40 # Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.14/0.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Initial clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.14/0.40 # Processed clauses : 15
% 0.14/0.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 0.14/0.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.14/0.40 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Generated clauses : 28
% 0.14/0.40 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 26
% 0.14/0.40 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Paramodulations : 28
% 0.14/0.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.14/0.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.14/0.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 44
% 0.14/0.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 7
% 0.14/0.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.14/0.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.14/0.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.14/0.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 603
% 0.14/0.40
% 0.14/0.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.40 # User time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.40 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.40 # Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.40 # Maximum resident set size: 1576 pages
% 0.14/0.40
% 0.14/0.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.40 # User time : 0.015 s
% 0.14/0.40 # System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.40 # Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.14/0.40 # Maximum resident set size: 1672 pages
% 0.14/0.40 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.14/0.40 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------