TSTP Solution File: KLE085+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : KLE085+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n023.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 : Sun Jul 17 01:55:47 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 1.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 25 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 24 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 5 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 30 ( 1 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(goals,conjecture,
! [X4] : addition(domain(X4),one) = one,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',goals) ).
fof(domain4,axiom,
! [X4] : domain(X4) = antidomain(antidomain(X4)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+4.ax',domain4) ).
fof(additive_associativity,axiom,
! [X3,X2,X1] : addition(X1,addition(X2,X3)) = addition(addition(X1,X2),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_associativity) ).
fof(additive_idempotence,axiom,
! [X1] : addition(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_idempotence) ).
fof(domain3,axiom,
! [X4] : addition(antidomain(antidomain(X4)),antidomain(X4)) = one,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+4.ax',domain3) ).
fof(additive_commutativity,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_commutativity) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4] : addition(domain(X4),one) = one,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
addition(domain(esk1_0),one) != one,
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X5] : domain(X5) = antidomain(antidomain(X5)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[domain4]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] : addition(X6,addition(X5,X4)) = addition(addition(X6,X5),X4),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_associativity]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X2] : addition(X2,X2) = X2,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_idempotence]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X5] : addition(antidomain(antidomain(X5)),antidomain(X5)) = one,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[domain3]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X3,X4] : addition(X3,X4) = addition(X4,X3),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_commutativity]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
addition(domain(esk1_0),one) != one,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
domain(X1) = antidomain(antidomain(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
addition(X1,addition(X2,X3)) = addition(addition(X1,X2),X3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
addition(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
addition(antidomain(antidomain(X1)),antidomain(X1)) = one,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
addition(antidomain(antidomain(esk1_0)),one) != one,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
addition(X1,addition(X1,X2)) = addition(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
addition(antidomain(X1),antidomain(antidomain(X1))) = one,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
addition(one,antidomain(antidomain(esk1_0))) != one,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
addition(one,antidomain(X1)) = one,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.13 % Problem : KLE085+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.08/0.14 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.15/0.36 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.15/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Jun 16 16:15:35 EDT 2022
% 0.15/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.27/1.44 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.27/1.44 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.27/1.44 # Preprocessing time : 0.014 s
% 0.27/1.44
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof found!
% 0.27/1.44 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/1.44 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object total steps : 25
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object clause steps : 12
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object formula steps : 13
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object conjectures : 7
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object clause conjectures : 4
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object initial formulas used : 6
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.27/1.44 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 6
% 0.27/1.44 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.27/1.44 # Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.27/1.44 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.27/1.44 # Initial clauses : 19
% 0.27/1.44 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.27/1.44 # Initial clauses in saturation : 18
% 0.27/1.44 # Processed clauses : 33
% 0.27/1.44 # ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.27/1.44 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # ...remaining for further processing : 30
% 0.27/1.44 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.27/1.44 # Generated clauses : 160
% 0.27/1.44 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 85
% 0.27/1.44 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Paramodulations : 160
% 0.27/1.44 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Current number of processed clauses : 26
% 0.27/1.44 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 25
% 0.27/1.44 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.27/1.44 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 66
% 0.27/1.44 # ...number of literals in the above : 66
% 0.27/1.44 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.27/1.44 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/1.44 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # BW rewrite match attempts : 25
% 0.27/1.44 # BW rewrite match successes : 18
% 0.27/1.44 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/1.44 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2138
% 0.27/1.44
% 0.27/1.44 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/1.44 # User time : 0.015 s
% 0.27/1.44 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/1.44 # Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.27/1.44 # Maximum resident set size: 2816 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------