TSTP Solution File: COL119-2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : COL119-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s

% Computer : n016.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 10:35:09 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 2.00s 1.56s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.47s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :   13
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   18 (   6 unt;  10 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   10 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    7 (   5   ~;   2   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   11 (   4   >;   7   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    9 (   9 usr;   6 con; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (;   6   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_in > c_Pair > tc_prod > c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D > #nlpp > v_y_H > v_x_H > v_w > tc_Comb_Ocomb > c_Comb_Oparcontract > c_Comb_Ocomb_OK

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(c_Comb_Ocomb_OK,type,
    c_Comb_Ocomb_OK: $i ).

tff(tc_prod,type,
    tc_prod: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(c_in,type,
    c_in: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(v_y_H,type,
    v_y_H: $i ).

tff(c_Comb_Oparcontract,type,
    c_Comb_Oparcontract: $i ).

tff(v_w,type,
    v_w: $i ).

tff(c_Pair,type,
    c_Pair: ( $i * $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D,type,
    c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(tc_Comb_Ocomb,type,
    tc_Comb_Ocomb: $i ).

tff(v_x_H,type,
    v_x_H: $i ).

tff(f_26,axiom,
    c_in(c_Pair(v_y_H,v_x_H,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_34,axiom,
    ! [V_x,V_y] : c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OK,V_x),V_y),V_x,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_32,axiom,
    ! [V_U] :
      ( ~ c_in(c_Pair(v_y_H,V_U,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
      | ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OK,v_x_H),v_w),V_U,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    c_in(c_Pair(v_y_H,v_x_H,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_26]) ).

tff(c_6,plain,
    ! [V_x_2,V_y_3] : c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OK,V_x_2),V_y_3),V_x_2,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).

tff(c_8,plain,
    ! [V_U_6] :
      ( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OK,v_x_H),v_w),V_U_6,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
      | ~ c_in(c_Pair(v_y_H,V_U_6,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_Pair(v_y_H,v_x_H,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_6,c_8]) ).

tff(c_16,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_12]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : COL119-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.14  % Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % 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 18:41:23 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.00/1.56  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.00/1.56  
% 2.00/1.56  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.47/1.60  
% 2.47/1.60  Inference rules
% 2.47/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.47/1.60  #Ref     : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Sup     : 1
% 2.47/1.60  #Fact    : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Define  : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Split   : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Chain   : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Close   : 0
% 2.47/1.60  
% 2.47/1.60  Ordering : KBO
% 2.47/1.60  
% 2.47/1.60  Simplification rules
% 2.47/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.47/1.60  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Demod        : 1
% 2.47/1.60  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #SimpNegUnit  : 0
% 2.47/1.60  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.47/1.60  
% 2.47/1.60  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.47/1.60  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.47/1.60  
% 2.47/1.60  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.47/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.47/1.60  Preprocessing        : 0.40
% 2.47/1.60  Parsing              : 0.22
% 2.47/1.60  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.47/1.60  Main loop            : 0.12
% 2.47/1.60  Inferencing          : 0.06
% 2.47/1.60  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.47/1.60  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.47/1.60  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.47/1.60  Subsumption          : 0.02
% 2.47/1.61  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  Total                : 0.58
% 2.47/1.61  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.47/1.61  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------