TSTP Solution File: GEG022_1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : GEG022_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% 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 : n008.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 10:37:49 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 5.64s 2.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 5.64s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 15
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 33 ( 18 unt; 14 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 34 ( 21 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 8 ~; 0 |; 14 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number arithmetic : 44 ( 12 atm; 7 fun; 25 num; 0 var)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 ari)
% Number of type conns : 2 ( 1 >; 1 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 28 ( 13 usr; 26 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 (; 16 !; 0 ?; 16 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ d > #nlpp > saarbruecken > munich > kiel > hamburg > frankfurt > cologne > berlin
%Foreground sorts:
tff(city,type,
city: $tType ).
%Background operators:
tff('#skE_2',type,
'#skE_2': $int ).
tff('#skE_1',type,
'#skE_1': $int ).
tff('#skE_5',type,
'#skE_5': $int ).
tff('#skE_4',type,
'#skE_4': $int ).
tff('#skE_3',type,
'#skE_3': $int ).
%Foreground operators:
tff(munich,type,
munich: city ).
tff(kiel,type,
kiel: city ).
tff(d,type,
d: ( city * city ) > $int ).
tff(frankfurt,type,
frankfurt: city ).
tff(berlin,type,
berlin: city ).
tff(cologne,type,
cologne: city ).
tff(saarbruecken,type,
saarbruecken: city ).
tff(hamburg,type,
hamburg: city ).
tff(f_63,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X: city,Y: city] : ( d(X,Y) = d(Y,X) )
& ! [X: city,Y: city,Z: city] : $lesseq(d(X,Z),$sum(d(X,Y),d(Y,Z)))
& ! [X: city] : ( d(X,X) = 0 )
& ( d(berlin,munich) = 510 )
& ( d(berlin,cologne) = 480 )
& ( d(berlin,frankfurt) = 420 )
& ( d(saarbruecken,frankfurt) = 160 )
& ( d(saarbruecken,cologne) = 190 )
& ( d(hamburg,cologne) = 360 )
& ( d(hamburg,frankfurt) = 390 )
& ( d(cologne,frankfurt) = 150 )
& ( d(hamburg,kiel) = 90 )
& ( d(hamburg,berlin) = 250 )
& ( d(munich,frankfurt) = 300 )
& ( d(munich,saarbruecken) = 360 ) )
=> $lesseq(d(hamburg,munich),700) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',city_distance_2) ).
tff(c_44,plain,
d(hamburg,frankfurt) = 390,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_35,plain,
! [Y_2: city,X_1: city] : ( d(Y_2,X_1) = d(X_1,Y_2) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_246,plain,
d(frankfurt,hamburg) = 390,
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_44,c_35]) ).
tff(c_48,plain,
d(munich,frankfurt) = 300,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_123,plain,
d(frankfurt,munich) = 300,
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_48,c_35]) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
~ $lesseq(d(hamburg,munich),700),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_50,plain,
$less(700,d(hamburg,munich)),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_2]) ).
tff(c_278,plain,
d(hamburg,munich) = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_50]) ).
tff(c_31,plain,
! [X_3: city,Z_5: city,Y_4: city] : $lesseq(d(X_3,Z_5),$sum(d(X_3,Y_4),d(Y_4,Z_5))),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_313,plain,
! [X_10: city,Y_11: city,Z_12: city] : ~ $less($sum(d(X_10,Y_11),d(Y_11,Z_12)),d(X_10,Z_12)),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_31]) ).
tff(c_533,plain,
! [Y_11: city] : ~ $less($sum(d(hamburg,Y_11),d(Y_11,munich)),'#skE_1'),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_278,c_313]) ).
tff(c_3648,plain,
! [Y_265: city] : ~ $less($sum(d(Y_265,munich),d(hamburg,Y_265)),'#skE_1'),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_533]) ).
tff(c_3659,plain,
~ $less($sum(300,d(hamburg,frankfurt)),'#skE_1'),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_123,c_3648]) ).
tff(c_3716,plain,
~ $less($sum(300,390),'#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_246,c_35,c_3659]) ).
tff(c_3718,plain,
~ $less(690,'#skE_1'),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_3716]) ).
tff(c_275,plain,
d(hamburg,munich) = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_50]) ).
tff(c_279,plain,
$less(700,'#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_275,c_50]) ).
tff(c_3771,plain,
$false,
inference(close,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_3718,c_279]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : GEG022_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% 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
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 20:04:34 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 5.64/2.39 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 5.64/2.39
% 5.64/2.39 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 5.64/2.41
% 5.64/2.41 Inference rules
% 5.64/2.41 ----------------------
% 5.64/2.41 #Ref : 0
% 5.64/2.41 #Sup : 637
% 5.64/2.41 #Fact : 0
% 5.64/2.41 #Define : 5
% 5.64/2.41 #Split : 0
% 5.64/2.41 #Chain : 0
% 5.64/2.41 #Close : 1
% 5.64/2.41
% 5.64/2.41 Ordering : LPO
% 5.64/2.41
% 5.64/2.41 Simplification rules
% 5.64/2.41 ----------------------
% 5.64/2.41 #Subsume : 33
% 5.64/2.41 #Demod : 342
% 5.64/2.41 #Tautology : 231
% 5.64/2.41 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 5.64/2.41 #BackRed : 0
% 5.64/2.41
% 5.64/2.41 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 5.64/2.41 #Strategies tried : 1
% 5.64/2.41
% 5.64/2.41 Timing (in seconds)
% 5.64/2.41 ----------------------
% 5.64/2.42 Preprocessing : 0.49
% 5.64/2.42 Parsing : 0.29
% 5.64/2.42 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 5.64/2.42 Main loop : 0.87
% 5.64/2.42 Inferencing : 0.20
% 5.64/2.42 Reduction : 0.27
% 5.64/2.42 Demodulation : 0.23
% 5.64/2.42 BG Simplification : 0.08
% 5.64/2.42 Subsumption : 0.17
% 5.64/2.42 Abstraction : 0.04
% 5.64/2.42 MUC search : 0.01
% 5.64/2.42 Cooper : 0.07
% 5.64/2.42 Total : 1.40
% 5.64/2.42 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 5.64/2.42 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 5.64/2.42 Index Matching : 0.00
% 5.64/2.42 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------