TSTP Solution File: KRS200+1 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : KRS200+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v5.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n018.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 02:56:05 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 7.58s 2.37s
% Output : CNFRefutation 7.58s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 7 unt; 7 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 29 ( 0 equ; 11 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 29 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_5,plain,
~ model(X1,esk2_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_5) ).
cnf(i_0_80,plain,
( status(X1,X2,unp)
| model(esk52_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_80) ).
cnf(i_0_48,plain,
( nota(X1,X2)
| status(X3,X4,X2)
| ~ status(X3,X4,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_48) ).
cnf(i_0_76,plain,
( model(X1,X2)
| ~ model(X1,X3)
| ~ status(X3,X2,thm) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_76) ).
cnf(i_0_49,negated_conjecture,
~ nota(unp,thm),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_49) ).
cnf(i_0_3,plain,
( model(X1,X2)
| model(X1,not(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-t6dv_aox/input.p',i_0_3) ).
cnf(c_0_87,plain,
~ model(X1,esk2_0),
i_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_88,plain,
( status(X1,X2,unp)
| model(esk52_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
i_0_80 ).
cnf(c_0_89,plain,
( nota(X1,X2)
| status(X3,X4,X2)
| ~ status(X3,X4,X1) ),
i_0_48 ).
cnf(c_0_90,plain,
status(X1,esk2_0,unp),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_87,c_0_88]) ).
cnf(c_0_91,plain,
( model(X1,X2)
| ~ model(X1,X3)
| ~ status(X3,X2,thm) ),
i_0_76 ).
cnf(c_0_92,plain,
( status(X1,esk2_0,X2)
| nota(unp,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_89,c_0_90]) ).
cnf(c_0_93,negated_conjecture,
~ nota(unp,thm),
i_0_49 ).
cnf(c_0_94,plain,
( model(X1,X2)
| model(X1,not(X2)) ),
i_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_95,plain,
~ model(X1,X2),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_91,c_0_92]),c_0_87]),c_0_93]) ).
cnf(c_0_96,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_94,c_0_95]),c_0_95]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.11 % Problem : KRS200+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v5.4.0.
% 0.11/0.11 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.11/0.32 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.32 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.32 % DateTime : Tue Jun 7 14:16:37 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.18/0.44 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.18/0.44 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 7.58/2.37 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 7.58/2.37 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.58/2.37 # Preprocessing time : 0.020 s
% 7.58/2.37
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof found!
% 7.58/2.37 # SZS status Theorem
% 7.58/2.37 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object total steps : 16
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object clause steps : 10
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object formula steps : 6
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object conjectures : 2
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object clause conjectures : 1
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object formula conjectures : 1
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object initial formulas used : 6
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 7.58/2.37 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 7.58/2.37 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.58/2.37 # Parsed axioms : 109
% 7.58/2.37 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Initial clauses : 109
% 7.58/2.37 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Initial clauses in saturation : 109
% 7.58/2.37 # Processed clauses : 130
% 7.58/2.37 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # ...subsumed : 2
% 7.58/2.37 # ...remaining for further processing : 128
% 7.58/2.37 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Generated clauses : 791
% 7.58/2.37 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 743
% 7.58/2.37 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Paramodulations : 755
% 7.58/2.37 # Factorizations : 22
% 7.58/2.37 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Current number of processed clauses : 114
% 7.58/2.37 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 7.58/2.37 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Negative unit clauses : 17
% 7.58/2.37 # Non-unit-clauses : 90
% 7.58/2.37 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 528
% 7.58/2.37 # ...number of literals in the above : 1595
% 7.58/2.37 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Current number of archived clauses : 14
% 7.58/2.37 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2038
% 7.58/2.37 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1160
% 7.58/2.37 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 7.58/2.37 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 427
% 7.58/2.37 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 7.58/2.37 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Condensation successes : 0
% 7.58/2.37 # Termbank termtop insertions : 10569
% 7.58/2.37
% 7.58/2.37 # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.58/2.37 # User time : 0.031 s
% 7.58/2.37 # System time : 0.007 s
% 7.58/2.37 # Total time : 0.038 s
% 7.58/2.37 # ...preprocessing : 0.020 s
% 7.58/2.37 # ...main loop : 0.018 s
% 7.58/2.37 # Maximum resident set size: 7136 pages
% 7.58/2.37
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------