TSTP Solution File: SYN034-1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN034-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 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 : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 11:08:33 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.50s 1.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.64s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 32 ( 15 unt; 3 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 47 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 45 ( 27 ~; 18 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 3 ( 2 >; 1 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 (; 15 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ p > #nlpp > f > a
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(a,type,
a: $i ).
tff(f,type,
f: $i > $i ).
tff(p,type,
p: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(f_27,axiom,
! [A] :
( p(A,a)
| p(A,f(A)) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_31,axiom,
! [A] :
( p(A,a)
| p(f(A),A) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_40,axiom,
! [A,B] :
( ~ p(A,B)
| ~ p(B,A)
| ~ p(B,a) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [A_1] :
( p(A_1,f(A_1))
| p(A_1,a) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [A_2] :
( p(f(A_2),A_2)
| p(A_2,a) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_31]) ).
tff(c_9,plain,
! [B_7,A_8] :
( ~ p(B_7,a)
| ~ p(B_7,A_8)
| ~ p(A_8,B_7) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_40]) ).
tff(c_13,plain,
! [A_8] :
( ~ p(f(a),A_8)
| ~ p(A_8,f(a))
| p(a,a) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_9]) ).
tff(c_15,plain,
! [A_9] :
( ~ p(f(a),A_9)
| ~ p(A_9,f(a)) ),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_13]) ).
tff(c_23,plain,
( ~ p(a,f(a))
| p(a,a) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_15]) ).
tff(c_24,plain,
~ p(a,f(a)),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_23]) ).
tff(c_28,plain,
p(a,a),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_24]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [B_4,A_3] :
( ~ p(B_4,a)
| ~ p(B_4,A_3)
| ~ p(A_3,B_4) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_40]) ).
tff(c_32,plain,
! [A_10] :
( ~ p(a,A_10)
| ~ p(A_10,a) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_28,c_6]) ).
tff(c_34,plain,
~ p(a,a),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_28,c_32]) ).
tff(c_41,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_28,c_34]) ).
tff(c_43,plain,
p(a,f(a)),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_23]) ).
tff(c_22,plain,
( ~ p(f(f(a)),f(a))
| p(f(a),a) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_15]) ).
tff(c_44,plain,
~ p(f(f(a)),f(a)),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_22]) ).
tff(c_51,plain,
p(f(a),a),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_44]) ).
tff(c_14,plain,
! [A_8] :
( ~ p(f(a),A_8)
| ~ p(A_8,f(a)) ),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_13]) ).
tff(c_53,plain,
~ p(a,f(a)),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_51,c_14]) ).
tff(c_59,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_43,c_53]) ).
tff(c_60,plain,
p(f(a),a),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_22]) ).
tff(c_66,plain,
~ p(a,f(a)),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_60,c_14]) ).
tff(c_72,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_43,c_66]) ).
tff(c_73,plain,
p(a,a),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_13]) ).
tff(c_77,plain,
! [A_11] :
( ~ p(a,A_11)
| ~ p(A_11,a) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_73,c_6]) ).
tff(c_79,plain,
~ p(a,a),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_73,c_77]) ).
tff(c_86,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_73,c_79]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11 % Problem : SYN034-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 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 : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 17:53:24 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 2.50/1.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.64/1.54
% 2.64/1.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.64/1.58
% 2.64/1.58 Inference rules
% 2.64/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.64/1.58 #Ref : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Sup : 17
% 2.64/1.58 #Fact : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Define : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Split : 3
% 2.64/1.58 #Chain : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Close : 0
% 2.64/1.58
% 2.64/1.58 Ordering : KBO
% 2.64/1.58
% 2.64/1.58 Simplification rules
% 2.64/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.64/1.58 #Subsume : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Demod : 4
% 2.64/1.58 #Tautology : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.64/1.58 #BackRed : 0
% 2.64/1.58
% 2.64/1.58 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.64/1.58 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.64/1.58
% 2.64/1.58 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.64/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.64/1.58 Preprocessing : 0.38
% 2.64/1.58 Parsing : 0.22
% 2.64/1.59 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.64/1.59 Main loop : 0.21
% 2.64/1.59 Inferencing : 0.10
% 2.64/1.59 Reduction : 0.03
% 2.64/1.59 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.64/1.59 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.64/1.59 Subsumption : 0.05
% 2.64/1.59 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.64/1.59 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.64/1.59 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.64/1.59 Total : 0.66
% 2.64/1.59 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.64/1.59 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.64/1.59 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.64/1.59 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------