TSTP Solution File: REL009+2 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : REL009+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n015.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 19:19:03 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.25s 1.42s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   24 (  20 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   31 (  30 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   13 (   6   ~;   2   |;   3   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   34 (   0 sgn  22   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(goals,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] :
      ( join(X1,X2) = X2
     => ( join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)) = composition(X2,X3)
        & join(composition(X3,X1),composition(X3,X2)) = composition(X3,X2) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',goals) ).

fof(converse_additivity,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : converse(join(X1,X2)) = join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',converse_additivity) ).

fof(composition_distributivity,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] : composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',composition_distributivity) ).

fof(converse_multiplicativity,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',converse_multiplicativity) ).

fof(converse_idempotence,axiom,
    ! [X1] : converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001+0.ax',converse_idempotence) ).

fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
        ( join(X1,X2) = X2
       => ( join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)) = composition(X2,X3)
          & join(composition(X3,X1),composition(X3,X2)) = composition(X3,X2) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X3,X4] : converse(join(X3,X4)) = join(converse(X3),converse(X4)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[converse_additivity]) ).

fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( join(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0
    & ( join(composition(esk1_0,esk3_0),composition(esk2_0,esk3_0)) != composition(esk2_0,esk3_0)
      | join(composition(esk4_0,esk1_0),composition(esk4_0,esk2_0)) != composition(esk4_0,esk2_0) ) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_8,plain,
    ! [X4,X5,X6] : composition(join(X4,X5),X6) = join(composition(X4,X6),composition(X5,X6)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[composition_distributivity]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    converse(join(X1,X2)) = join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    join(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk2_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    join(converse(esk1_0),converse(esk2_0)) = converse(esk2_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

fof(c_0_13,plain,
    ! [X3,X4] : converse(composition(X3,X4)) = composition(converse(X4),converse(X3)),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[converse_multiplicativity]) ).

fof(c_0_14,plain,
    ! [X2] : converse(converse(X2)) = X2,
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[converse_idempotence]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(converse(esk1_0),X1),composition(converse(esk2_0),X1)) = composition(converse(esk2_0),X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,plain,
    converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    ( join(composition(esk4_0,esk1_0),composition(esk4_0,esk2_0)) != composition(esk4_0,esk2_0)
    | join(composition(esk1_0,esk3_0),composition(esk2_0,esk3_0)) != composition(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(esk1_0,X1),composition(esk2_0,X1)) = composition(esk2_0,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(converse(X1),esk1_0),composition(converse(X1),esk2_0)) = composition(converse(X1),esk2_0),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17]),c_0_16]),c_0_17]),c_0_16]),c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(esk4_0,esk1_0),composition(esk4_0,esk2_0)) != composition(esk4_0,esk2_0),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19])]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(X1,esk1_0),composition(X1,esk2_0)) = composition(X1,esk2_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.12  % Problem  : REL009+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.08/0.13  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.13/0.34  % DateTime : Fri Jul  8 12:03:36 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.25/1.42  # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.42  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.25/1.42  # Preprocessing time       : 0.015 s
% 0.25/1.42  
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof found!
% 0.25/1.42  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/1.42  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object total steps             : 24
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object clause steps            : 13
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object formula steps           : 11
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object conjectures             : 12
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 9
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 6
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 5
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object generating inferences   : 5
% 0.25/1.42  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 10
% 0.25/1.42  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.42  # Parsed axioms                        : 17
% 0.25/1.42  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 3
% 0.25/1.42  # Initial clauses                      : 15
% 0.25/1.42  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 1
% 0.25/1.42  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 14
% 0.25/1.42  # Processed clauses                    : 133
% 0.25/1.42  # ...of these trivial                  : 49
% 0.25/1.42  # ...subsumed                          : 34
% 0.25/1.42  # ...remaining for further processing  : 50
% 0.25/1.42  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Backward-rewritten                   : 5
% 0.25/1.42  # Generated clauses                    : 1107
% 0.25/1.42  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 925
% 0.25/1.42  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Paramodulations                      : 1107
% 0.25/1.42  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Current number of processed clauses  : 45
% 0.25/1.42  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 41
% 0.25/1.42  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.25/1.42  #    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.25/1.42  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 771
% 0.25/1.42  # ...number of literals in the above   : 771
% 0.25/1.42  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Current number of archived clauses   : 6
% 0.25/1.42  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 21
% 0.25/1.42  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 91
% 0.25/1.42  # BW rewrite match successes           : 64
% 0.25/1.42  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/1.42  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 18718
% 0.25/1.42  
% 0.25/1.42  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.42  # User time                : 0.035 s
% 0.25/1.42  # System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.25/1.42  # Total time               : 0.039 s
% 0.25/1.42  # Maximum resident set size: 3872 pages
% 0.25/23.41  eprover: CPU time limit exceeded, terminating
% 0.25/23.42  eprover: CPU time limit exceeded, terminating
% 0.25/23.43  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.43  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.43  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.43  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.44  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.45  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.46  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.47  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.48  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.48  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.48  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.48  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.49  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/23.49  eprover: No such file or directory
% 0.25/23.49  eprover: Cannot stat file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in
% 0.25/23.49  eprover: No such file or directory
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------