TSTP Solution File: LCL800-1 by E---3.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1
% Problem : LCL800-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n016.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 18:21:56 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.38s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 12 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 7 equ; 2 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_subst__App_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(X1,X2),X3,X4) = c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,X3,X4),c_Lambda_Osubst(X2,X3,X4)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p',cls_subst__App_0) ).
cnf(cls_subst__lift_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,X2),X3,X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p',cls_subst__lift_0) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).
cnf(cls_subst__eq_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,X1) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p',cls_subst__eq_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(v_u____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(X1,X2),X3,X4) = c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,X3,X4),c_Lambda_Osubst(X2,X3,X4)),
cls_subst__App_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,X2),X3,X2) = X1,
cls_subst__lift_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),
cls_CHAINED_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,X2),X3),X4,X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(X1,c_Lambda_Osubst(X3,X4,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,X1) = X2,
cls_subst__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(v_u____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____))),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.17 % Problem : LCL800-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.16/0.18 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.16/0.39 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.39 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.39 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.39 % CPULimit : 2400
% 0.16/0.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.39 % DateTime : Mon Oct 2 12:36:51 EDT 2023
% 0.16/0.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.38/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.38/0.56 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Cmbk9HaHfI/E---3.1_32448.p
% 0.38/0.62 # Version: 3.1pre001
% 0.38/0.62 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.38/0.62 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # new_bool_3 with pid 32527 completed with status 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.38/0.62 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.38/0.62 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.38/0.62 # Search class: FGHSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.38/0.62 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 181s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 32531 completed with status 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Result found by G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.38/0.62 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.38/0.62 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.38/0.62 # Search class: FGHSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.38/0.62 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.38/0.62 # Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 181s (1) cores
% 0.38/0.62 # Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 # Proof found!
% 0.38/0.62 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.38/0.62 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.38/0.62 # Parsed axioms : 390
% 0.38/0.62 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 220
% 0.38/0.62 # Initial clauses : 170
% 0.38/0.62 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Initial clauses in saturation : 170
% 0.38/0.62 # Processed clauses : 264
% 0.38/0.62 # ...of these trivial : 18
% 0.38/0.62 # ...subsumed : 78
% 0.38/0.62 # ...remaining for further processing : 168
% 0.38/0.62 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.38/0.62 # Backward-rewritten : 6
% 0.38/0.62 # Generated clauses : 1904
% 0.38/0.62 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1595
% 0.38/0.62 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.38/0.62 # Paramodulations : 1888
% 0.38/0.62 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.38/0.62 # NegExts : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Equation resolutions : 14
% 0.38/0.62 # Total rewrite steps : 1471
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.38/0.62 # Current number of processed clauses : 160
% 0.38/0.62 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 45
% 0.38/0.62 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.38/0.62 # Negative unit clauses : 20
% 0.38/0.62 # Non-unit-clauses : 90
% 0.38/0.62 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1492
% 0.38/0.62 # ...number of literals in the above : 3041
% 0.38/0.62 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Current number of archived clauses : 8
% 0.38/0.62 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1250
% 0.38/0.62 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1233
% 0.38/0.62 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 30
% 0.38/0.62 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 185
% 0.38/0.62 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # BW rewrite match attempts : 70
% 0.38/0.62 # BW rewrite match successes : 38
% 0.38/0.62 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.38/0.62 # Termbank termtop insertions : 34173
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.38/0.62 # User time : 0.037 s
% 0.38/0.62 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.38/0.62 # Total time : 0.041 s
% 0.38/0.62 # Maximum resident set size: 2188 pages
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.38/0.62 # User time : 0.050 s
% 0.38/0.62 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.38/0.62 # Total time : 0.054 s
% 0.38/0.62 # Maximum resident set size: 1940 pages
% 0.38/0.62 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.38/0.62 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------