TSTP Solution File: SYN979+1 by E-SAT---3.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.1
% Problem  : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 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 20:42:50 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 0.17s 0.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    8 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   42 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   12 (   5 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   41 (   7   ~;   4   |;  22   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   8  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   15 (   6 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   4 sgn;   6   !;   4   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2] :
    ? [X3,X4] :
      ( ( ( q(X3)
         => p(X3,X1) )
        & q(X1)
        & q(X2)
        & ( r(X4)
         => p(X2,X4) )
        & r(X1)
        & r(X2)
        & ( s(X1)
         => p(X3,X4) )
        & s(X1) )
     => p(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.Yzk5XZOIcO/E---3.1_9236.p',prove_this) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2] :
      ? [X3,X4] :
        ( ( ( q(X3)
           => p(X3,X1) )
          & q(X1)
          & q(X2)
          & ( r(X4)
           => p(X2,X4) )
          & r(X1)
          & r(X2)
          & ( s(X1)
           => p(X3,X4) )
          & s(X1) )
       => p(X1,X2) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X7,X8] :
      ( ( ~ q(X7)
        | p(X7,esk1_0) )
      & q(esk1_0)
      & q(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ r(X8)
        | p(esk2_0,X8) )
      & r(esk1_0)
      & r(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ s(esk1_0)
        | p(X7,X8) )
      & s(esk1_0)
      & ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( p(X1,X2)
    | ~ s(esk1_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    p(X1,X2),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.05/0.10  % Problem    : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.05/0.11  % Command    : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.12/0.31  % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.31  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.31  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.31  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.31  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.31  % CPULimit   : 2400
% 0.12/0.31  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.12/0.31  % DateTime   : Mon Oct  2 19:04:13 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.31  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.17/0.43  Running first-order model finding
% 0.17/0.43  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.Yzk5XZOIcO/E---3.1_9236.p
% 0.17/0.44  # Version: 3.1pre001
% 0.17/0.44  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.44  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # new_bool_3 with pid 9314 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.17/0.44  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.44  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.44  # Search class: FHUNF-FFSS00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.44  # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 9317 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.17/0.44  # Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.44  # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/0.44  # Search class: FHUNF-FFSS00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.44  # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.44  # Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 181s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.44  # Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.17/0.44  # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.17/0.44  
% 0.17/0.44  # Proof found!
% 0.17/0.44  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.17/0.44  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/0.44  # Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.17/0.44  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Initial clauses                      : 9
% 0.17/0.44  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 9
% 0.17/0.44  # Processed clauses                    : 9
% 0.17/0.44  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # ...remaining for further processing  : 9
% 0.17/0.44  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Backward-rewritten                   : 3
% 0.17/0.44  # Generated clauses                    : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # NegExts                              : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Total rewrite steps                  : 3
% 0.17/0.44  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  #    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  #    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  #    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  #    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.17/0.44  # Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.17/0.44  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 6
% 0.17/0.44  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.17/0.44  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.17/0.44  # ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.17/0.44  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 3
% 0.17/0.44  # BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 0.17/0.44  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.17/0.44  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 395
% 0.17/0.44  
% 0.17/0.44  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.44  # User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.17/0.44  # System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.17/0.44  # Total time               : 0.003 s
% 0.17/0.44  # Maximum resident set size: 1744 pages
% 0.17/0.44  
% 0.17/0.44  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.44  # User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.17/0.44  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.17/0.44  # Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.17/0.44  # Maximum resident set size: 1672 pages
% 0.17/0.44  % E---3.1 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------