TSTP Solution File: LCL754-1 by E---3.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1
% Problem : LCL754-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n004.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 18:21:48 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.89s 0.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.89s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 13 unt; 3 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 27 ( 8 equ; 8 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 8 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_subst__Abs_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2,X3) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,c_Lambda_Olift(X2,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X3,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_subst__Abs_0) ).
cnf(cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0) ).
cnf(cls_Lambda_0,axiom,
( c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1))
| ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_Lambda_0) ).
cnf(cls_lift_Osimps_I1_J_1,axiom,
( c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))
| c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(X1,X2,tc_nat) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_lift_Osimps_I1_J_1) ).
cnf(cls_gr__implies__not0_0,axiom,
~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_gr__implies__not0_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),v_ja)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2,X3) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,c_Lambda_Olift(X2,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X3,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
cls_subst__Abs_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
( c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1))
| ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1) ),
cls_Lambda_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,c_Lambda_Olift(X2,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_Suc(X3))) = c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2,X3),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
( c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))
| c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(X1,X2,tc_nat) ),
cls_lift_Osimps_I1_J_1 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2,X3))
| ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,c_Lambda_Olift(X2,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_Suc(X3))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X1))
| c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(X1,X2,tc_nat) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),tc_nat),
cls_gr__implies__not0_0 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3))
| ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X2)),c_Suc(X3))) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),v_ja)),
cls_conjecture_2 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.18 % Problem : LCL754-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.11/0.20 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.20/0.41 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.41 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.20/0.41 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.20/0.41 % CPULimit : 2400
% 0.20/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Oct 2 12:59:45 EDT 2023
% 0.20/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.26/0.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.60 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.0CvUJ9JSFk/E---3.1_20300.p
% 1.89/0.89 # Version: 3.1pre001
% 1.89/0.89 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.89/0.89 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # new_bool_3 with pid 20399 completed with status 0
% 1.89/0.89 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 1.89/0.89 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.89/0.89 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.89/0.89 # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 1.89/0.89 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 135s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with pid 20403 completed with status 0
% 1.89/0.89 # Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d
% 1.89/0.89 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.89/0.89 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 1.89/0.89 # Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 1.89/0.89 # Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 1.89/0.89 # Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 135s (1) cores
% 1.89/0.89 # Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 1.89/0.89 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 1.89/0.89
% 1.89/0.89 # Proof found!
% 1.89/0.89 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 1.89/0.89 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.89/0.90 # Parsed axioms : 718
% 1.89/0.90 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 491
% 1.89/0.90 # Initial clauses : 227
% 1.89/0.90 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Initial clauses in saturation : 227
% 1.89/0.90 # Processed clauses : 4456
% 1.89/0.90 # ...of these trivial : 117
% 1.89/0.90 # ...subsumed : 3447
% 1.89/0.90 # ...remaining for further processing : 892
% 1.89/0.90 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 69
% 1.89/0.90 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Backward-subsumed : 2
% 1.89/0.90 # Backward-rewritten : 10
% 1.89/0.90 # Generated clauses : 18361
% 1.89/0.90 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15586
% 1.89/0.90 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 1.89/0.90 # Paramodulations : 18273
% 1.89/0.90 # Factorizations : 4
% 1.89/0.90 # NegExts : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Equation resolutions : 84
% 1.89/0.90 # Total rewrite steps : 11544
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional check models : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 1.89/0.90 # Current number of processed clauses : 714
% 1.89/0.90 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 219
% 1.89/0.90 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 1.89/0.90 # Negative unit clauses : 191
% 1.89/0.90 # Non-unit-clauses : 297
% 1.89/0.90 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 11517
% 1.89/0.90 # ...number of literals in the above : 18026
% 1.89/0.90 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Current number of archived clauses : 178
% 1.89/0.90 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 22321
% 1.89/0.90 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13766
% 1.89/0.90 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1020
% 1.89/0.90 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5538
% 1.89/0.90 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # BW rewrite match attempts : 751
% 1.89/0.90 # BW rewrite match successes : 118
% 1.89/0.90 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Condensation successes : 0
% 1.89/0.90 # Termbank termtop insertions : 244397
% 1.89/0.90
% 1.89/0.90 # -------------------------------------------------
% 1.89/0.90 # User time : 0.233 s
% 1.89/0.90 # System time : 0.010 s
% 1.89/0.90 # Total time : 0.244 s
% 1.89/0.90 # Maximum resident set size: 2452 pages
% 1.89/0.90
% 1.89/0.90 # -------------------------------------------------
% 1.89/0.90 # User time : 0.251 s
% 1.89/0.90 # System time : 0.013 s
% 1.89/0.90 # Total time : 0.264 s
% 1.89/0.90 # Maximum resident set size: 2160 pages
% 1.89/0.90 % E---3.1 exiting
% 1.89/0.90 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------