TSTP Solution File: SYO111^5 by E---3.1.00
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.1.00
% Problem : SYO111^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E %s %d THM
% Computer : n015.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 08:44:41 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 5 unt; 9 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 55 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 22 ( 5 avg)
% Number of connectives : 135 ( 36 ~; 36 |; 7 &; 54 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 3 ( 3 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 10 ( 9 usr; 7 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 ^ 27 !; 8 ?; 35 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_22,type,
cG: $i > $o ).
thf(decl_23,type,
cN: $i > $o ).
thf(decl_24,type,
cM: $i > $o ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk1_0: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
esk2_0: $i ).
thf(decl_27,type,
esk3_0: $i ).
thf(decl_28,type,
esk4_0: $i ).
thf(decl_29,type,
esk5_0: $i ).
thf(decl_30,type,
esk6_0: $i ).
thf(cTHM80,conjecture,
( ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cM @ X1 )
| ? [X2: $i] :
~ ( cG @ X2 )
| ~ ( ! [X3: $i] : ( cM @ X3 )
| ? [X4: $i] : ( cN @ X4 ) )
| ~ ( ! [X5: $i] :
~ ( cN @ X5 )
| ~ ! [X6: $i] : ( cG @ X6 ) ) )
=> ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cM @ X1 )
| ? [X2: $i] :
~ ( cG @ X2 )
| ~ ! [X3: $i] :
( ( cM @ X3 )
| ? [X4: $i] : ( cN @ X4 ) )
| ~ ! [X5: $i] :
( ~ ( cN @ X5 )
| ~ ! [X6: $i] : ( cG @ X6 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cTHM80) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cM @ X1 )
| ? [X2: $i] :
~ ( cG @ X2 )
| ~ ( ! [X3: $i] : ( cM @ X3 )
| ? [X4: $i] : ( cN @ X4 ) )
| ~ ( ! [X5: $i] :
~ ( cN @ X5 )
| ~ ! [X6: $i] : ( cG @ X6 ) ) )
=> ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cM @ X1 )
| ? [X2: $i] :
~ ( cG @ X2 )
| ~ ! [X3: $i] :
( ( cM @ X3 )
| ? [X4: $i] : ( cN @ X4 ) )
| ~ ! [X5: $i] :
( ~ ( cN @ X5 )
| ~ ! [X6: $i] : ( cG @ X6 ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM80])]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X19: $i,X22: $i,X24: $i,X26: $i,X27: $i,X29: $i] :
( ( ( cN @ esk3_0 )
| ~ ( cM @ esk2_0 )
| ( cM @ X19 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk1_0 ) )
& ( ( cG @ X24 )
| ~ ( cM @ esk2_0 )
| ( cM @ X19 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk1_0 ) )
& ( ( cN @ esk3_0 )
| ~ ( cN @ X22 )
| ( cM @ X19 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk1_0 ) )
& ( ( cG @ X24 )
| ~ ( cN @ X22 )
| ( cM @ X19 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk1_0 ) )
& ~ ( cM @ esk4_0 )
& ( cG @ X26 )
& ( ( cM @ X27 )
| ( cN @ esk5_0 ) )
& ( ~ ( cN @ X29 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk6_0 ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ~ ( cN @ X1 )
| ~ ( cG @ esk6_0 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] : ( cG @ X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( cM @ X1 )
| ( cN @ esk5_0 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
~ ( cN @ X1 ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ( cM @ esk4_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] : ( cM @ X1 ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.14 % Problem : SYO111^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.04/0.15 % Command : run_E %s %d THM
% 0.16/0.36 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % DateTime : Mon May 20 08:46:23 EDT 2024
% 0.16/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/0.49 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.50 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
% 0.23/0.51 # Version: 3.1.0-ho
% 0.23/0.51 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.51 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # sh4l with pid 18156 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Result found by sh4l
% 0.23/0.51 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.51 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.51 # Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.51 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # new_ho_10 with pid 18158 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.23/0.51 # Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.51 # Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.51 # Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.51 # Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.51 # Starting new_ho_10 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.51 # Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/0.51 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.23/0.51
% 0.23/0.51 # Proof found!
% 0.23/0.51 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.51 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.51 # Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.23/0.51 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Initial clauses : 11
% 0.23/0.51 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.23/0.51 # Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.23/0.51 # Processed clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.51 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.23/0.51 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.23/0.51 # Generated clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Paramodulations : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.23/0.51 # ...of those cached : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.51 # Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.23/0.51 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.51 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.51 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.23/0.51 # ...number of literals in the above : 16
% 0.23/0.51 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.51 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.23/0.51 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.23/0.51 # Condensation attempts : 4
% 0.23/0.51 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.51 # Termbank termtop insertions : 723
% 0.23/0.51 # Search garbage collected termcells : 248
% 0.23/0.51
% 0.23/0.51 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.51 # User time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.51 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.23/0.51 # Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.51 # Maximum resident set size: 1744 pages
% 0.23/0.51
% 0.23/0.51 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.51 # User time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.51 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/0.51 # Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.51 # Maximum resident set size: 1700 pages
% 0.23/0.51 % E---3.1 exiting
% 0.23/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------