TSTP Solution File: SWV373+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SWV373+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n016.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 : Wed Jul 20 18:16:22 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 1.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 40 ( 10 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 43 ( 22 ~; 10 |; 6 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 44 ( 11 sgn 31 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l9_co,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ contains_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3),findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
=> ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l9_co) ).
fof(ax39,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( contains_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3),X4)
<=> contains_slb(X2,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+3.ax',ax39) ).
fof(l9_l10,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
=> ( X2 != create_slb
& contains_slb(X2,findmin_pqp_res(X1))
& less_than(lookup_slb(X2,findmin_pqp_res(X1)),findmin_pqp_res(X1)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l9_l10) ).
fof(ax51,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( X2 != create_slb
=> findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3)) = findmin_pqp_res(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+3.ax',ax51) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ contains_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3),findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
=> ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l9_co]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ contains_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0),findmin_cpq_res(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))
& ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X8,X5,X6,X7,X8] :
( ( ~ contains_cpq(triple(X5,X6,X7),X8)
| contains_slb(X6,X8) )
& ( ~ contains_slb(X6,X8)
| contains_cpq(triple(X5,X6,X7),X8) ) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax39])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,lemma,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ( X5 != create_slb
| ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X4,X5,X6))) )
& ( contains_slb(X5,findmin_pqp_res(X4))
| ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X4,X5,X6))) )
& ( less_than(lookup_slb(X5,findmin_pqp_res(X4)),findmin_pqp_res(X4))
| ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X4,X5,X6))) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l9_l10])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ contains_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0),findmin_cpq_res(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( contains_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3),X4)
| ~ contains_slb(X2,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7] :
( X6 = create_slb
| findmin_cpq_res(triple(X5,X6,X7)) = findmin_pqp_res(X5) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax51])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
( ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| X2 != create_slb ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ contains_slb(esk2_0,findmin_cpq_res(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3)) = findmin_pqp_res(X1)
| X2 = create_slb ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
create_slb != esk2_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
( contains_slb(X2,findmin_pqp_res(X1))
| ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ contains_slb(esk2_0,findmin_pqp_res(esk1_0)),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_12]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SWV373+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 11:05:17 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.34 % 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 : 0.018 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 : 19
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object clause steps : 10
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 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 : 4
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object generating inferences : 4
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 2
% 0.25/1.42 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.42 # Parsed axioms : 43
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 18
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses : 33
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 33
% 0.25/1.42 # Processed clauses : 38
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 37
% 0.25/1.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Generated clauses : 44
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 37
% 0.25/1.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Paramodulations : 41
% 0.25/1.42 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.25/1.42 # Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 36
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 23
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.25/1.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 103
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 61
% 0.25/1.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/1.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2981
% 0.25/1.42
% 0.25/1.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.42 # User time : 0.017 s
% 0.25/1.42 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Maximum resident set size: 3040 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------