TSTP Solution File: LCL536+1 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : LCL536+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n026.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 09:26:39 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.64s 2.42s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.64s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    8
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   22 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;  16 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   34 (   3 equ;  15 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    7 (   5 usr;   5 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_105,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(necessarily(X1))
    | ~ necessitation
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_105) ).

cnf(i_0_85,plain,
    necessitation,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_85) ).

cnf(i_0_114,plain,
    ( necessarily(implies(X1,X2)) = strict_implies(X1,X2)
    | ~ op_strict_implies ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_114) ).

cnf(i_0_136,plain,
    op_strict_implies,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_136) ).

cnf(i_0_19,plain,
    ( axiom_m10
    | ~ is_a_theorem(strict_implies(possibly(esk14_0),necessarily(possibly(esk14_0)))) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_19) ).

cnf(i_0_131,negated_conjecture,
    ~ axiom_m10,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_131) ).

cnf(i_0_14,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(implies(possibly(X1),necessarily(possibly(X1))))
    | ~ axiom_5 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_14) ).

cnf(i_0_82,plain,
    axiom_5,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-r91deaj_/input.p',i_0_82) ).

cnf(c_0_145,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(necessarily(X1))
    | ~ necessitation
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
    i_0_105 ).

cnf(c_0_146,plain,
    necessitation,
    i_0_85 ).

cnf(c_0_147,plain,
    ( necessarily(implies(X1,X2)) = strict_implies(X1,X2)
    | ~ op_strict_implies ),
    i_0_114 ).

cnf(c_0_148,plain,
    op_strict_implies,
    i_0_136 ).

cnf(c_0_149,plain,
    ( axiom_m10
    | ~ is_a_theorem(strict_implies(possibly(esk14_0),necessarily(possibly(esk14_0)))) ),
    i_0_19 ).

cnf(c_0_150,negated_conjecture,
    ~ axiom_m10,
    i_0_131 ).

cnf(c_0_151,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(necessarily(X1))
    | ~ is_a_theorem(X1) ),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_145,c_0_146])]) ).

cnf(c_0_152,plain,
    necessarily(implies(X1,X2)) = strict_implies(X1,X2),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_147,c_0_148])]) ).

cnf(c_0_153,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(implies(possibly(X1),necessarily(possibly(X1))))
    | ~ axiom_5 ),
    i_0_14 ).

cnf(c_0_154,plain,
    axiom_5,
    i_0_82 ).

cnf(c_0_155,plain,
    ~ is_a_theorem(strict_implies(possibly(esk14_0),necessarily(possibly(esk14_0)))),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_149,c_0_150]) ).

cnf(c_0_156,plain,
    ( is_a_theorem(strict_implies(X1,X2))
    | ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X2)) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_151,c_0_152]) ).

cnf(c_0_157,plain,
    is_a_theorem(implies(possibly(X1),necessarily(possibly(X1)))),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_153,c_0_154])]) ).

cnf(c_0_158,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_155,c_0_156]),c_0_157])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.13  % Problem  : LCL536+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.13/0.35  % Computer : n026.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  : 600
% 0.13/0.35  % DateTime : Mon Jul  4 15:46:53 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.46  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.20/0.47  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.20/0.47  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 7.64/2.42  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y:
% 7.64/2.42  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.64/2.42  # Preprocessing time       : 0.014 s
% 7.64/2.42  
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof found!
% 7.64/2.42  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.64/2.42  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object total steps             : 22
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object clause steps            : 14
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object formula steps           : 8
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object conjectures             : 2
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 1
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 1
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 8
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 8
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object generating inferences   : 2
% 7.64/2.42  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 9
% 7.64/2.42  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.64/2.42  # Parsed axioms                        : 143
% 7.64/2.42  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Initial clauses                      : 143
% 7.64/2.42  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 143
% 7.64/2.42  # Processed clauses                    : 179
% 7.64/2.42  # ...of these trivial                  : 28
% 7.64/2.42  # ...subsumed                          : 3
% 7.64/2.42  # ...remaining for further processing  : 148
% 7.64/2.42  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 7.64/2.42  # Generated clauses                    : 408
% 7.64/2.42  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 357
% 7.64/2.42  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Paramodulations                      : 408
% 7.64/2.42  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Current number of processed clauses  : 144
% 7.64/2.42  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 50
% 7.64/2.42  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 7.64/2.42  #    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 7.64/2.42  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 91
% 7.64/2.42  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 311
% 7.64/2.42  # ...number of literals in the above   : 815
% 7.64/2.42  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 7.64/2.42  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 746
% 7.64/2.42  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 610
% 7.64/2.42  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 7.64/2.42  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 113
% 7.64/2.42  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 22
% 7.64/2.42  # BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 7.64/2.42  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.64/2.42  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 6656
% 7.64/2.42  
% 7.64/2.42  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.64/2.42  # User time                : 0.016 s
% 7.64/2.42  # System time              : 0.005 s
% 7.64/2.42  # Total time               : 0.021 s
% 7.64/2.42  # ...preprocessing         : 0.014 s
% 7.64/2.42  # ...main loop             : 0.007 s
% 7.64/2.42  # Maximum resident set size: 7132 pages
% 7.64/2.42  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------