TSTP Solution File: SET991+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SET991+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% Computer : n025.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 : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 10:57:28 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 4.41s 2.01s
% Output : CNFRefutation 4.59s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 29
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 36 ( 5 unt; 27 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 2 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 21 ( 8 ~; 5 |; 3 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 27 ( 18 >; 9 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 9 ( 7 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 20 ( 20 usr; 9 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 (; 7 !; 1 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ subset > in > element > relation_empty_yielding > relation > function > empty > apply > #nlpp > relation_rng > relation_dom > powerset > empty_set > #skF_4 > #skF_11 > #skF_1 > #skF_7 > #skF_13 > #skF_10 > #skF_14 > #skF_12 > #skF_5 > #skF_6 > #skF_2 > #skF_9 > #skF_8 > #skF_15 > #skF_3
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(relation,type,
relation: $i > $o ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': $i > $i ).
tff('#skF_11',type,
'#skF_11': $i ).
tff(apply,type,
apply: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i > $i ).
tff(element,type,
element: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(function,type,
function: $i > $o ).
tff('#skF_7',type,
'#skF_7': $i ).
tff(relation_empty_yielding,type,
relation_empty_yielding: $i > $o ).
tff('#skF_13',type,
'#skF_13': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_10',type,
'#skF_10': $i ).
tff('#skF_14',type,
'#skF_14': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_12',type,
'#skF_12': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(in,type,
in: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_5',type,
'#skF_5': $i ).
tff(subset,type,
subset: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_6',type,
'#skF_6': $i ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': $i ).
tff(empty,type,
empty: $i > $o ).
tff('#skF_9',type,
'#skF_9': $i ).
tff(empty_set,type,
empty_set: $i ).
tff(relation_dom,type,
relation_dom: $i > $i ).
tff('#skF_8',type,
'#skF_8': $i ).
tff('#skF_15',type,
'#skF_15': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': $i > $i ).
tff(powerset,type,
powerset: $i > $i ).
tff(relation_rng,type,
relation_rng: $i > $i ).
tff(f_173,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [A,B] :
( ( relation(B)
& function(B) )
=> ( in(A,relation_dom(B))
=> in(apply(B,A),relation_rng(B)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t12_funct_1) ).
tff(f_188,axiom,
! [A] :
( ( relation(A)
& function(A) )
=> ! [B] :
( ( B = relation_rng(A) )
<=> ! [C] :
( in(C,B)
<=> ? [D] :
( in(D,relation_dom(A))
& ( C = apply(A,D) ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',d5_funct_1) ).
tff(c_90,plain,
relation('#skF_11'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_173]) ).
tff(c_88,plain,
function('#skF_11'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_173]) ).
tff(c_86,plain,
in('#skF_10',relation_dom('#skF_11')),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_173]) ).
tff(c_587,plain,
! [A_139,D_140] :
( in(apply(A_139,D_140),relation_rng(A_139))
| ~ in(D_140,relation_dom(A_139))
| ~ function(A_139)
| ~ relation(A_139) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_188]) ).
tff(c_84,plain,
~ in(apply('#skF_11','#skF_10'),relation_rng('#skF_11')),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_173]) ).
tff(c_603,plain,
( ~ in('#skF_10',relation_dom('#skF_11'))
| ~ function('#skF_11')
| ~ relation('#skF_11') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_587,c_84]) ).
tff(c_621,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_90,c_88,c_86,c_603]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SET991+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.15/0.35 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 17:09:34 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 4.41/2.01 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.41/2.02
% 4.41/2.02 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 4.59/2.04
% 4.59/2.04 Inference rules
% 4.59/2.04 ----------------------
% 4.59/2.04 #Ref : 0
% 4.59/2.04 #Sup : 117
% 4.59/2.04 #Fact : 0
% 4.59/2.04 #Define : 0
% 4.59/2.04 #Split : 3
% 4.59/2.04 #Chain : 0
% 4.59/2.04 #Close : 0
% 4.59/2.04
% 4.59/2.04 Ordering : KBO
% 4.59/2.04
% 4.59/2.04 Simplification rules
% 4.59/2.04 ----------------------
% 4.59/2.04 #Subsume : 11
% 4.59/2.04 #Demod : 68
% 4.59/2.04 #Tautology : 64
% 4.59/2.04 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 4.59/2.04 #BackRed : 9
% 4.59/2.04
% 4.59/2.04 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 4.59/2.04 #Strategies tried : 1
% 4.59/2.04
% 4.59/2.04 Timing (in seconds)
% 4.59/2.04 ----------------------
% 4.59/2.05 Preprocessing : 0.56
% 4.59/2.05 Parsing : 0.28
% 4.59/2.05 CNF conversion : 0.05
% 4.59/2.05 Main loop : 0.43
% 4.59/2.05 Inferencing : 0.15
% 4.59/2.05 Reduction : 0.13
% 4.59/2.05 Demodulation : 0.09
% 4.59/2.05 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 4.59/2.05 Subsumption : 0.11
% 4.59/2.05 Abstraction : 0.02
% 4.59/2.05 MUC search : 0.00
% 4.59/2.05 Cooper : 0.00
% 4.59/2.05 Total : 1.04
% 4.59/2.05 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 4.59/2.05 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 4.59/2.05 Index Matching : 0.00
% 4.59/2.05 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------