TSTP Solution File: NUM742^1 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : NUM742^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n017.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 : Tue May 21 01:15:54 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 13
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 35 ( 12 unt; 6 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 56 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 159 ( 22 ~; 19 |; 0 &; 110 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 4 ( 4 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 ^ 35 !; 0 ?; 35 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
frac: $tType ).
thf(decl_22,type,
x: frac ).
thf(decl_23,type,
y: frac ).
thf(decl_24,type,
z: frac ).
thf(decl_25,type,
lessf: frac > frac > $o ).
thf(decl_26,type,
eq: frac > frac > $o ).
thf(l,axiom,
( ~ ( lessf @ x @ y )
=> ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l) ).
thf(satz51a,conjecture,
lessf @ x @ z,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz51a) ).
thf(satz50,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
=> ( ( lessf @ X3 @ X4 )
=> ( lessf @ X2 @ X4 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz50) ).
thf(satz38,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( ( eq @ X2 @ X3 )
=> ( eq @ X3 @ X2 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz38) ).
thf(k,axiom,
lessf @ y @ z,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k) ).
thf(satz45,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
=> ( ( eq @ X2 @ X4 )
=> ( ( eq @ X3 @ X5 )
=> ( lessf @ X4 @ X5 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz45) ).
thf(satz37,axiom,
! [X2: frac] : ( eq @ X2 @ X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz37) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ ( lessf @ x @ y )
=> ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz51a])]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
! [X20: frac,X21: frac,X22: frac] :
( ~ ( lessf @ X20 @ X21 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X21 @ X22 )
| ( lessf @ X20 @ X22 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz50])])]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
! [X23: frac,X24: frac] :
( ~ ( eq @ X23 @ X24 )
| ( eq @ X24 @ X23 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz38])])]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
( ( lessf @ x @ y )
| ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X4 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X3 @ X4 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
lessf @ y @ z,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[k]) ).
thf(c_0_15,plain,
! [X16: frac,X17: frac,X18: frac,X19: frac] :
( ~ ( lessf @ X16 @ X17 )
| ~ ( eq @ X16 @ X18 )
| ~ ( eq @ X17 @ X19 )
| ( lessf @ X18 @ X19 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz45])])]) ).
thf(c_0_16,plain,
! [X25: frac] : ( eq @ X25 @ X25 ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz37]) ).
thf(c_0_17,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( ( eq @ X3 @ X2 )
| ~ ( eq @ X2 @ X3 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_18,plain,
( ( lessf @ x @ y )
| ( eq @ x @ y ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
thf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
thf(c_0_20,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ z )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ y ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
thf(c_0_21,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X4 @ X5 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( eq @ X2 @ X4 )
| ~ ( eq @ X3 @ X5 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
thf(c_0_22,plain,
! [X2: frac] : ( eq @ X2 @ X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
thf(c_0_23,plain,
( ( lessf @ x @ y )
| ( eq @ y @ x ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
thf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ y ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
thf(c_0_25,plain,
! [X4: frac,X3: frac,X2: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X4 @ X3 )
| ~ ( eq @ X4 @ X2 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
thf(c_0_26,plain,
eq @ y @ x,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).
thf(c_0_27,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( ( lessf @ x @ X2 )
| ~ ( lessf @ y @ X2 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).
thf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_27]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : NUM742^1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Mon May 20 05:25:53 EDT 2024
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.51 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.51 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.20/0.52 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.20/0.52 # Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.52 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting full_lambda_5 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # new_bool_1 with pid 17683 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.20/0.52 # Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.52 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.52 # Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.52 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # new_ho_10 with pid 17687 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.20/0.52 # Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.52 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.52 # Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.52 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.52 # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.52 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.20/0.52 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.20/0.52
% 0.20/0.52 # Proof found!
% 0.20/0.52 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.20/0.52 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/0.52 # Parsed axioms : 14
% 0.20/0.52 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.20/0.52 # Initial clauses : 7
% 0.20/0.52 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.20/0.52 # Processed clauses : 26
% 0.20/0.52 # ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.20/0.52 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.20/0.52 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Generated clauses : 31
% 0.20/0.52 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 23
% 0.20/0.52 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Paramodulations : 29
% 0.20/0.52 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # NegExts : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.20/0.52 # ...of those cached : 1
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.52 # Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.20/0.52 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.20/0.52 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.20/0.52 # Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.20/0.52 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7
% 0.20/0.52 # ...number of literals in the above : 22
% 0.20/0.52 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.20/0.52 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20
% 0.20/0.52 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 18
% 0.20/0.52 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.20/0.52 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.20/0.52 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Condensation attempts : 26
% 0.20/0.52 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.20/0.52 # Termbank termtop insertions : 886
% 0.20/0.52 # Search garbage collected termcells : 108
% 0.20/0.52
% 0.20/0.52 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.52 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.20/0.52 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.20/0.52 # Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.20/0.52 # Maximum resident set size: 1792 pages
% 0.20/0.52
% 0.20/0.52 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.52 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.20/0.52 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.20/0.52 # Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.20/0.52 # Maximum resident set size: 1724 pages
% 0.20/0.52 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.20/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------