TSTP Solution File: SWC385-1 by E-SAT---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.1.00
% Problem : SWC385-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n028.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 04:29:24 EDT 2024
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 12 unt; 0 nHn; 19 RR)
% Number of literals : 26 ( 4 equ; 12 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 5 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 0 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(co1_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ singletonP(sk1)
| ~ segmentP(sk2,sk1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_10) ).
cnf(co1_5,negated_conjecture,
sk2 = sk4,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_5) ).
cnf(co1_8,negated_conjecture,
segmentP(sk4,sk3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_8) ).
cnf(co1_6,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_6) ).
cnf(co1_9,negated_conjecture,
( singletonP(sk3)
| ~ neq(sk4,nil) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_9) ).
cnf(co1_7,negated_conjecture,
neq(sk2,nil),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_7) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ singletonP(sk1)
| ~ segmentP(sk2,sk1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[co1_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ singletonP(sk1)
| ~ segmentP(sk2,sk1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
sk2 = sk4,
co1_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
segmentP(sk4,sk3),
co1_8 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
co1_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( singletonP(sk3)
| ~ neq(sk4,nil) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[co1_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
neq(sk2,nil),
co1_7 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ segmentP(sk4,sk1)
| ~ singletonP(sk1) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
segmentP(sk4,sk1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( singletonP(sk3)
| ~ neq(sk4,nil) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
neq(sk4,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ singletonP(sk1),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_10]),c_0_16])]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.13 % Problem : SWC385-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.08/0.14 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sun May 19 02:48:38 EDT 2024
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.48 Running first-order model finding
% 0.21/0.48 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
% 0.21/0.50 # Version: 3.1.0
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # new_bool_3 with pid 12082 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FGHSF-FFMM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 12085 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 # Search class: FGHSF-FFMM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 # Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # Proof found!
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.50 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.50 # Parsed axioms : 195
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 154
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses : 41
% 0.21/0.50 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Initial clauses in saturation : 41
% 0.21/0.50 # Processed clauses : 15
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.21/0.50 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Generated clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Paramodulations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.21/0.50 # ...of those cached : 4
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.21/0.50 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 27
% 0.21/0.50 # ...number of literals in the above : 109
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2718
% 0.21/0.50 # Search garbage collected termcells : 909
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.000 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1940 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 # User time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.50 # System time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.21/0.50 # Maximum resident set size: 1900 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------