TSTP Solution File: NUN081+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : NUN081+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n027.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 : Mon Jul 18 16:26:06 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 26 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 82 ( 22 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 98 ( 42 ~; 32 |; 24 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 14 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 66 ( 10 sgn 15 !; 18 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(xplusyeqthree,conjecture,
? [X39,X22,X23] :
( r3(X39,X22,X23)
& ? [X16] :
( X23 = X16
& ? [X17] :
( r2(X17,X16)
& ? [X25] :
( r2(X25,X17)
& ? [X19] :
( r1(X19)
& r2(X19,X25) ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',xplusyeqthree) ).
fof(axiom_4a,axiom,
! [X30] :
? [X31] :
( ? [X32] :
( r1(X32)
& r3(X30,X32,X31) )
& X31 = X30 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_4a) ).
fof(axiom_1,axiom,
? [X1] :
! [X2] :
( ( ~ r1(X2)
& X2 != X1 )
| ( r1(X2)
& X2 = X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_1) ).
fof(axiom_2,axiom,
! [X3] :
? [X4] :
! [X5] :
( ( ~ r2(X3,X5)
& X5 != X4 )
| ( r2(X3,X5)
& X5 = X4 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM008+0.ax',axiom_2) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X39,X22,X23] :
( r3(X39,X22,X23)
& ? [X16] :
( X23 = X16
& ? [X17] :
( r2(X17,X16)
& ? [X25] :
( r2(X25,X17)
& ? [X19] :
( r1(X19)
& r2(X19,X25) ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[xplusyeqthree]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X33] :
( r1(esk11_1(X33))
& r3(X33,esk11_1(X33),esk10_1(X33))
& esk10_1(X33) = X33 ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[axiom_4a])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X4] :
( ( r1(X4)
| ~ r1(X4) )
& ( X4 = esk9_0
| ~ r1(X4) )
& ( r1(X4)
| X4 != esk9_0 )
& ( X4 = esk9_0
| X4 != esk9_0 ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X40,X41,X42,X43,X44,X45,X46] :
( ~ r3(X40,X41,X42)
| X42 != X43
| ~ r2(X44,X43)
| ~ r2(X45,X44)
| ~ r1(X46)
| ~ r2(X46,X45) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
r3(X1,esk11_1(X1),esk10_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
esk10_1(X1) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( X1 = esk9_0
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
r1(esk11_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,X2)
| ~ r1(X1)
| ~ r2(X2,X3)
| ~ r2(X3,X4)
| X5 != X4
| ~ r3(X6,X7,X5) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
r3(X1,esk11_1(X1),X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
esk11_1(X1) = esk9_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X6,X8] :
( ( r2(X6,X8)
| ~ r2(X6,X8) )
& ( X8 = esk1_1(X6)
| ~ r2(X6,X8) )
& ( r2(X6,X8)
| X8 != esk1_1(X6) )
& ( X8 = esk1_1(X6)
| X8 != esk1_1(X6) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_2])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r3(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ r2(X4,X3)
| ~ r2(X5,X4)
| ~ r2(X6,X5)
| ~ r1(X6) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
r3(X1,esk9_0,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( r2(X2,X1)
| X1 != esk1_1(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,X2)
| ~ r2(X3,X1)
| ~ r2(X4,X3)
| ~ r1(X4) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
r2(X1,esk1_1(X1)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,X2)
| ~ r2(X3,X1)
| ~ r1(X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r2(X1,X2)
| ~ r1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
r1(esk9_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
~ r1(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : NUN081+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 2 10:09:49 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 26
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 17
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 5
% 0.22/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses : 27
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 19
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 44
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 43
% 0.22/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 69
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 68
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 59
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 34
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 18
% 0.22/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 75
% 0.22/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 49
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1655
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.016 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2852 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------