TSTP Solution File: CSR114+11 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : CSR114+11 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n017.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Fri Jul 15 02:49:06 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 8.68s 2.81s
% Output : CNFRefutation 8.68s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 27 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 27 RR)
% Number of literals : 74 ( 0 equ; 55 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 9 ( 8 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 68 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_880,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X3,X1)
| ~ scar(X3,X4)
| ~ attr(X2,X5)
| ~ subs(X3,stehen_1_1)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_880) ).
cnf(i_0_748,plain,
( scar(esk27_2(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_748) ).
cnf(i_0_747,plain,
( subs(esk27_2(X1,X2),stehen_1_1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_747) ).
cnf(i_0_749,plain,
( loc(esk27_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_749) ).
cnf(i_0_838,plain,
( loc(X1,esk50_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_838) ).
cnf(i_0_840,plain,
( in(esk50_3(X1,X2,X3),esk48_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_840) ).
cnf(i_0_839,plain,
( attr(esk48_3(X1,X2,X3),esk49_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_839) ).
cnf(i_0_836,plain,
( sub(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),name_1_1)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_836) ).
cnf(i_0_642,plain,
state_adjective_state_binding(italienisch__1_1,italien_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_642) ).
cnf(i_0_366,hypothesis,
prop(c417,italienisch__1_1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-q5_8fyfz/input.p',i_0_366) ).
cnf(c_0_891,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X3,X1)
| ~ scar(X3,X4)
| ~ attr(X2,X5)
| ~ subs(X3,stehen_1_1)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1) ),
i_0_880 ).
cnf(c_0_892,plain,
( scar(esk27_2(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_748 ).
cnf(c_0_893,plain,
( subs(esk27_2(X1,X2),stehen_1_1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_747 ).
cnf(c_0_894,negated_conjecture,
( ~ loc(esk27_2(X1,X2),X3)
| ~ loc(X1,X2)
| ~ in(X3,X4)
| ~ attr(X4,X5)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_891,c_0_892]),c_0_893]) ).
cnf(c_0_895,plain,
( loc(esk27_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_749 ).
cnf(c_0_896,plain,
( ~ loc(X1,X2)
| ~ in(X2,X3)
| ~ attr(X3,X4)
| ~ sub(X4,name_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_894,c_0_895]) ).
cnf(c_0_897,plain,
( loc(X1,esk50_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_838 ).
cnf(c_0_898,plain,
( ~ in(esk50_3(X1,X2,X3),X4)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3)
| ~ attr(X4,X5)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_896,c_0_897]) ).
cnf(c_0_899,plain,
( in(esk50_3(X1,X2,X3),esk48_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_840 ).
cnf(c_0_900,plain,
( ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X1,X2)
| ~ attr(esk48_3(X3,X1,X2),X4)
| ~ prop(X3,X1)
| ~ sub(X4,name_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_898,c_0_899]) ).
cnf(c_0_901,plain,
( attr(esk48_3(X1,X2,X3),esk49_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_839 ).
cnf(c_0_902,plain,
( sub(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),name_1_1)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_836 ).
cnf(c_0_903,plain,
( ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X1,X2)
| ~ prop(X3,X1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_900,c_0_901]),c_0_902]) ).
cnf(c_0_904,plain,
state_adjective_state_binding(italienisch__1_1,italien_0),
i_0_642 ).
cnf(c_0_905,hypothesis,
prop(c417,italienisch__1_1),
i_0_366 ).
cnf(c_0_906,plain,
~ prop(X1,italienisch__1_1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_903,c_0_904]) ).
cnf(c_0_907,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_905,c_0_906]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : CSR114+11 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sat Jun 11 01:19:37 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.36/0.59 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.36/0.59 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.36/0.59 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.36/0.59 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 8.68/2.81 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y:
% 8.68/2.81 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 8.68/2.81 # Preprocessing time : 0.037 s
% 8.68/2.81
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof found!
% 8.68/2.81 # SZS status Theorem
% 8.68/2.81 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object total steps : 27
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object clause steps : 17
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object formula steps : 10
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object conjectures : 3
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object formula conjectures : 1
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object initial clauses used : 10
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object initial formulas used : 10
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 8.68/2.81 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 8.68/2.81 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 8.68/2.81 # Parsed axioms : 900
% 8.68/2.81 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Initial clauses : 900
% 8.68/2.81 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Initial clauses in saturation : 900
% 8.68/2.81 # Processed clauses : 942
% 8.68/2.81 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # ...subsumed : 6
% 8.68/2.81 # ...remaining for further processing : 936
% 8.68/2.81 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Backward-subsumed : 12
% 8.68/2.81 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Generated clauses : 1959
% 8.68/2.81 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 1958
% 8.68/2.81 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 7
% 8.68/2.81 # Paramodulations : 1958
% 8.68/2.81 # Factorizations : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Current number of processed clauses : 923
% 8.68/2.81 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 600
% 8.68/2.81 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 8.68/2.81 # Non-unit-clauses : 321
% 8.68/2.81 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1870
% 8.68/2.81 # ...number of literals in the above : 5849
% 8.68/2.81 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Current number of archived clauses : 13
% 8.68/2.81 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 31503
% 8.68/2.81 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10755
% 8.68/2.81 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 25
% 8.68/2.81 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1883
% 8.68/2.81 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Condensation successes : 0
% 8.68/2.81 # Termbank termtop insertions : 36809
% 8.68/2.81
% 8.68/2.81 # -------------------------------------------------
% 8.68/2.81 # User time : 0.071 s
% 8.68/2.81 # System time : 0.011 s
% 8.68/2.81 # Total time : 0.082 s
% 8.68/2.81 # ...preprocessing : 0.037 s
% 8.68/2.81 # ...main loop : 0.045 s
% 8.68/2.81 # Maximum resident set size: 10684 pages
% 8.68/2.81
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------