TSTP Solution File: REL023+2 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : REL023+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n024.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 19:13:17 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.64s 2.37s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.64s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    9
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   30 (  30 unt;   0 nHn;   6 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   30 (  29 equ;   4 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   45 (   1 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_7,plain,
    composition(converse(X1),converse(X2)) = converse(composition(X2,X1)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_7) ).

cnf(i_0_6,plain,
    converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_6) ).

cnf(i_0_3,plain,
    composition(X1,one) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_3) ).

cnf(i_0_5,plain,
    join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2)) = complement(X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_5) ).

cnf(i_0_12,plain,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_12) ).

cnf(i_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(complement(join(complement(esk1_0),complement(converse(esk2_0)))),complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0))))) != composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_11) ).

cnf(i_0_13,plain,
    join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_13) ).

cnf(i_0_14,plain,
    join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2))) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_14) ).

cnf(i_0_2,plain,
    join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2)) = composition(join(X1,X3),X2),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-h2q2942f/input.p',i_0_2) ).

cnf(c_0_24,plain,
    composition(converse(X1),converse(X2)) = converse(composition(X2,X1)),
    i_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_25,plain,
    converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
    i_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_26,plain,
    converse(composition(converse(X1),X2)) = composition(converse(X2),X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,plain,
    composition(X1,one) = X1,
    i_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_28,plain,
    composition(converse(one),X1) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]),c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_29,plain,
    join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2)) = complement(X2),
    i_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_30,plain,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    i_0_12 ).

cnf(c_0_31,plain,
    converse(one) = one,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]) ).

cnf(c_0_32,plain,
    join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1)))) = complement(X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_33,plain,
    composition(one,X1) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_31]) ).

cnf(c_0_34,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(complement(join(complement(esk1_0),complement(converse(esk2_0)))),complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0))))) != composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),
    i_0_11 ).

cnf(c_0_35,plain,
    join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
    i_0_13 ).

cnf(c_0_36,plain,
    join(complement(X1),complement(X1)) = complement(X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_32,c_0_33]),c_0_31]),c_0_33]) ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2))) = X1,
    i_0_14 ).

cnf(c_0_38,negated_conjecture,
    join(composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),composition(complement(join(complement(esk1_0),complement(converse(esk2_0)))),complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0))))) != composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_34,c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_39,plain,
    join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2)) = composition(join(X1,X3),X2),
    i_0_2 ).

cnf(c_0_40,plain,
    join(complement(X1),join(complement(X1),X2)) = join(complement(X1),X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_35,c_0_36]) ).

cnf(c_0_41,plain,
    join(complement(join(complement(X1),X2)),complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_37,c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_42,negated_conjecture,
    composition(join(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk1_0),complement(converse(esk2_0))))),complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))) != composition(esk1_0,complement(join(complement(esk2_0),complement(esk3_0)))),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_38,c_0_39]) ).

cnf(c_0_43,plain,
    join(X1,complement(join(complement(X1),X2))) = X1,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_40,c_0_41]),c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_44,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_42,c_0_43])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11  % Problem  : REL023+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.06/0.12  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n024.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 : Fri Jul  8 11:49:30 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.43  # 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
% 7.64/2.37  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y:
% 7.64/2.37  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.64/2.37  # Preprocessing time       : 0.025 s
% 7.64/2.37  
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof found!
% 7.64/2.37  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.64/2.37  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object total steps             : 30
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object clause steps            : 21
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object formula steps           : 9
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object conjectures             : 5
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 4
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 1
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 9
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 9
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object generating inferences   : 6
% 7.64/2.37  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 11
% 7.64/2.37  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.64/2.37  # Parsed axioms                        : 16
% 7.64/2.37  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Initial clauses                      : 16
% 7.64/2.37  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 16
% 7.64/2.37  # Processed clauses                    : 69
% 7.64/2.37  # ...of these trivial                  : 10
% 7.64/2.37  # ...subsumed                          : 11
% 7.64/2.37  # ...remaining for further processing  : 48
% 7.64/2.37  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Backward-rewritten                   : 12
% 7.64/2.37  # Generated clauses                    : 721
% 7.64/2.37  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 546
% 7.64/2.37  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Paramodulations                      : 721
% 7.64/2.37  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Current number of processed clauses  : 36
% 7.64/2.37  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 33
% 7.64/2.37  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 7.64/2.37  #    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 7.64/2.37  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 408
% 7.64/2.37  # ...number of literals in the above   : 408
% 7.64/2.37  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Current number of archived clauses   : 12
% 7.64/2.37  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 7.64/2.37  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 53
% 7.64/2.37  # BW rewrite match successes           : 31
% 7.64/2.37  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.64/2.37  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 10496
% 7.64/2.37  
% 7.64/2.37  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.64/2.37  # User time                : 0.028 s
% 7.64/2.37  # System time              : 0.006 s
% 7.64/2.37  # Total time               : 0.034 s
% 7.64/2.37  # ...preprocessing         : 0.025 s
% 7.64/2.37  # ...main loop             : 0.008 s
% 7.64/2.37  # Maximum resident set size: 7128 pages
% 7.64/2.37  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------