TSTP Solution File: COM004-1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : COM004-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 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 : n011.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 10:35:16 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.61s 1.68s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 21
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 36 ( 18 unt; 13 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 37 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 32 ( 18 ~; 14 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 13 ( 8 >; 5 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 (; 26 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ siblings > failure_node > contradictory > parent_of > or > #nlpp > right_child_of > negate > left_child_of > n_right > n_left > n > empty > atom
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(contradictory,type,
contradictory: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(siblings,type,
siblings: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(n_right,type,
n_right: $i ).
tff(or,type,
or: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(left_child_of,type,
left_child_of: $i > $i ).
tff(negate,type,
negate: $i > $i ).
tff(atom,type,
atom: $i ).
tff(n,type,
n: $i ).
tff(n_left,type,
n_left: $i ).
tff(parent_of,type,
parent_of: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(empty,type,
empty: $i ).
tff(failure_node,type,
failure_node: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(right_child_of,type,
right_child_of: $i > $i ).
tff(f_48,axiom,
n_right = right_child_of(n),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_47,axiom,
n_left = left_child_of(n),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_43,axiom,
! [X] : siblings(left_child_of(X),right_child_of(X)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_45,axiom,
failure_node(n_left,or(empty,atom)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_46,axiom,
failure_node(n_right,or(empty,negate(atom))),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_41,axiom,
! [X] : contradictory(X,negate(X)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_37,axiom,
! [P,C,X,Y,Q,D] :
( failure_node(parent_of(X,Y),or(C,D))
| ~ failure_node(X,or(C,P))
| ~ failure_node(Y,or(D,Q))
| ~ contradictory(P,Q)
| ~ siblings(X,Y) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_52,axiom,
! [Z] : ~ failure_node(Z,or(empty,empty)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_16,plain,
right_child_of(n) = n_right,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_48]) ).
tff(c_14,plain,
left_child_of(n) = n_left,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_47]) ).
tff(c_30,plain,
! [X_14] : siblings(left_child_of(X_14),right_child_of(X_14)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_43]) ).
tff(c_33,plain,
siblings(n_left,right_child_of(n)),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_14,c_30]) ).
tff(c_37,plain,
siblings(n_left,n_right),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_16,c_33]) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
failure_node(n_left,or(empty,atom)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_45]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
failure_node(n_right,or(empty,negate(atom))),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_46]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [X_8] : contradictory(X_8,negate(X_8)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_41]) ).
tff(c_40,plain,
! [Y_19,D_15,Q_18,P_16,C_20,X_17] :
( ~ siblings(X_17,Y_19)
| ~ contradictory(P_16,Q_18)
| ~ failure_node(Y_19,or(D_15,Q_18))
| ~ failure_node(X_17,or(C_20,P_16))
| failure_node(parent_of(X_17,Y_19),or(C_20,D_15)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).
tff(c_47,plain,
! [Y_25,X_22,D_23,C_21,X_24] :
( ~ siblings(X_22,Y_25)
| ~ failure_node(Y_25,or(D_23,negate(X_24)))
| ~ failure_node(X_22,or(C_21,X_24))
| failure_node(parent_of(X_22,Y_25),or(C_21,D_23)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_6,c_40]) ).
tff(c_51,plain,
! [X_26,C_27] :
( ~ siblings(X_26,n_right)
| ~ failure_node(X_26,or(C_27,atom))
| failure_node(parent_of(X_26,n_right),or(C_27,empty)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_12,c_47]) ).
tff(c_18,plain,
! [Z_10] : ~ failure_node(Z_10,or(empty,empty)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_52]) ).
tff(c_57,plain,
! [X_28] :
( ~ siblings(X_28,n_right)
| ~ failure_node(X_28,or(empty,atom)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_51,c_18]) ).
tff(c_60,plain,
~ siblings(n_left,n_right),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_10,c_57]) ).
tff(c_64,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_37,c_60]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : COM004-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 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
% 0.19/0.36 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.19/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.19/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 23:35:36 EDT 2023
% 0.19/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 2.61/1.68 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.61/1.68
% 2.61/1.68 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.81/1.72
% 2.81/1.72 Inference rules
% 2.81/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.81/1.72 #Ref : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Sup : 11
% 2.81/1.72 #Fact : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Define : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Split : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Chain : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Close : 0
% 2.81/1.72
% 2.81/1.72 Ordering : KBO
% 2.81/1.72
% 2.81/1.72 Simplification rules
% 2.81/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.81/1.72 #Subsume : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Demod : 4
% 2.81/1.72 #Tautology : 5
% 2.81/1.72 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.81/1.72 #BackRed : 0
% 2.81/1.72
% 2.81/1.72 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.81/1.72 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.81/1.72
% 2.81/1.72 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.81/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.81/1.72 Preprocessing : 0.40
% 2.81/1.72 Parsing : 0.22
% 2.81/1.72 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.81/1.72 Main loop : 0.19
% 2.81/1.72 Inferencing : 0.08
% 2.81/1.72 Reduction : 0.05
% 2.81/1.72 Demodulation : 0.04
% 2.81/1.72 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.81/1.72 Subsumption : 0.04
% 2.81/1.72 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.81/1.72 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.81/1.72 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.81/1.72 Total : 0.65
% 2.81/1.72 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.81/1.72 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.81/1.72 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.81/1.73 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------