TSTP Solution File: ITP010+5 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : ITP010+5 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v7.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n024.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 : Sat Jul 16 22:45:52 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.44s 2.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.44s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 6 ~; 0 |; 0 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 2 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_thm_2Ecardinal_2ECARD__NOT__LE,conjecture,
! [X9] :
( ne(X9)
=> ! [X11] :
( ne(X11)
=> ! [X168] :
( mem(X168,arr(X9,bool))
=> ! [X42] :
( mem(X42,arr(X11,bool))
=> ( ~ p(ap(ap(c_2Ecardinal_2Ecardleq(X9,X11),X168),X42))
<=> ~ p(ap(ap(c_2Ecardinal_2Ecardleq(X9,X11),X168),X42)) ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',conj_thm_2Ecardinal_2ECARD__NOT__LE) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X9] :
( ne(X9)
=> ! [X11] :
( ne(X11)
=> ! [X168] :
( mem(X168,arr(X9,bool))
=> ! [X42] :
( mem(X42,arr(X11,bool))
=> ( ~ p(ap(ap(c_2Ecardinal_2Ecardleq(X9,X11),X168),X42))
<=> ~ p(ap(ap(c_2Ecardinal_2Ecardleq(X9,X11),X168),X42)) ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_thm_2Ecardinal_2ECARD__NOT__LE]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ $true,
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.12 % Problem : ITP010+5 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v7.5.0.
% 0.04/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Jun 2 23:22:52 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 1.44/2.61 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 1.44/2.61 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 1.44/2.61 # Preprocessing time : 0.690 s
% 1.44/2.61
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof found!
% 1.44/2.61 # SZS status Theorem
% 1.44/2.61 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object total steps : 5
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object clause steps : 2
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object formula steps : 3
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object conjectures : 5
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object initial clauses used : 1
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object initial formulas used : 1
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object generating inferences : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 1
% 1.44/2.61 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 1.44/2.61 # Parsed axioms : 8598
% 1.44/2.61 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8497
% 1.44/2.61 # Initial clauses : 709
% 1.44/2.61 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 500
% 1.44/2.61 # Initial clauses in saturation : 209
% 1.44/2.61 # Processed clauses : 1
% 1.44/2.61 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # ...subsumed : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # ...remaining for further processing : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Generated clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Paramodulations : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Factorizations : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Current number of processed clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 208
% 1.44/2.61 # ...number of literals in the above : 1297
% 1.44/2.61 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Condensation successes : 0
% 1.44/2.61 # Termbank termtop insertions : 463787
% 1.44/2.61
% 1.44/2.61 # -------------------------------------------------
% 1.44/2.61 # User time : 0.659 s
% 1.44/2.61 # System time : 0.031 s
% 1.44/2.61 # Total time : 0.690 s
% 1.44/2.61 # Maximum resident set size: 49540 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------