TSTP Solution File: CAT014-3 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : CAT014-3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% Computer : n025.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 Aug 22 10:34:39 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 3.79s 2.16s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.79s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 14
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 30 ( 16 unt; 7 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 30 ( 16 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 10 ~; 7 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 9 ( 6 >; 3 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 (; 23 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ equivalent > there_exists > f1 > compose > #nlpp > domain > codomain > a
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(equivalent,type,
equivalent: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(a,type,
a: $i ).
tff(domain,type,
domain: $i > $i ).
tff(there_exists,type,
there_exists: $i > $o ).
tff(codomain,type,
codomain: $i > $i ).
tff(compose,type,
compose: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f1,type,
f1: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f_157,axiom,
there_exists(codomain(a)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_81,axiom,
! [X] :
( ~ there_exists(codomain(X))
| there_exists(X) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_105,axiom,
! [X] : ( compose(codomain(X),X) = X ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_101,axiom,
! [X,Y,Z] : ( compose(X,compose(Y,Z)) = compose(compose(X,Y),Z) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_91,axiom,
! [X,Y] :
( ~ there_exists(compose(X,Y))
| ( domain(X) = codomain(Y) ) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_103,axiom,
! [X] : ( compose(X,domain(X)) = X ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_159,axiom,
codomain(codomain(a)) != codomain(a),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_36,plain,
there_exists(codomain(a)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_157]) ).
tff(c_43,plain,
! [X_39] :
( there_exists(X_39)
| ~ there_exists(codomain(X_39)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_81]) ).
tff(c_47,plain,
there_exists(a),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_36,c_43]) ).
tff(c_22,plain,
! [X_19] : ( compose(codomain(X_19),X_19) = X_19 ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_105]) ).
tff(c_122,plain,
! [X_55,Y_56,Z_57] : ( compose(compose(X_55,Y_56),Z_57) = compose(X_55,compose(Y_56,Z_57)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_101]) ).
tff(c_213,plain,
! [X_60,Z_61] : ( compose(codomain(X_60),compose(X_60,Z_61)) = compose(X_60,Z_61) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_22,c_122]) ).
tff(c_246,plain,
! [X_19] : ( compose(codomain(codomain(X_19)),X_19) = compose(codomain(X_19),X_19) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_22,c_213]) ).
tff(c_258,plain,
! [X_62] : ( compose(codomain(codomain(X_62)),X_62) = X_62 ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_22,c_246]) ).
tff(c_14,plain,
! [X_11,Y_12] :
( ( domain(X_11) = codomain(Y_12) )
| ~ there_exists(compose(X_11,Y_12)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_91]) ).
tff(c_431,plain,
! [X_75] :
( ( domain(codomain(codomain(X_75))) = codomain(X_75) )
| ~ there_exists(X_75) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_258,c_14]) ).
tff(c_20,plain,
! [X_18] : ( compose(X_18,domain(X_18)) = X_18 ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_103]) ).
tff(c_455,plain,
! [X_75] :
( ( compose(codomain(codomain(X_75)),codomain(X_75)) = codomain(codomain(X_75)) )
| ~ there_exists(X_75) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_431,c_20]) ).
tff(c_471,plain,
! [X_76] :
( ( codomain(codomain(X_76)) = codomain(X_76) )
| ~ there_exists(X_76) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_22,c_455]) ).
tff(c_38,plain,
codomain(codomain(a)) != codomain(a),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_159]) ).
tff(c_549,plain,
~ there_exists(a),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_471,c_38]) ).
tff(c_569,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_47,c_549]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : CAT014-3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n025.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
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 18:01:19 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 3.79/2.16 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.79/2.17
% 3.79/2.17 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.79/2.21
% 3.79/2.21 Inference rules
% 3.79/2.21 ----------------------
% 3.79/2.21 #Ref : 0
% 3.79/2.21 #Sup : 145
% 3.79/2.21 #Fact : 2
% 3.79/2.21 #Define : 0
% 3.79/2.21 #Split : 0
% 3.79/2.21 #Chain : 0
% 3.79/2.21 #Close : 0
% 3.79/2.21
% 3.79/2.21 Ordering : KBO
% 3.79/2.21
% 3.79/2.21 Simplification rules
% 3.79/2.21 ----------------------
% 3.79/2.21 #Subsume : 47
% 3.79/2.21 #Demod : 26
% 3.79/2.21 #Tautology : 44
% 3.79/2.21 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 3.79/2.21 #BackRed : 0
% 3.79/2.21
% 3.79/2.21 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.79/2.21 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.79/2.21
% 3.79/2.21 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.79/2.21 ----------------------
% 3.79/2.21 Preprocessing : 0.59
% 3.79/2.21 Parsing : 0.31
% 3.79/2.21 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.79/2.21 Main loop : 0.51
% 3.79/2.21 Inferencing : 0.22
% 3.79/2.21 Reduction : 0.13
% 3.79/2.21 Demodulation : 0.09
% 3.79/2.21 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 3.79/2.21 Subsumption : 0.11
% 3.79/2.21 Abstraction : 0.02
% 3.79/2.21 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.79/2.21 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.79/2.21 Total : 1.17
% 3.79/2.21 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.79/2.22 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.79/2.22 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.79/2.22 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------