TSTP Solution File: SYN394+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN394+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 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 : n029.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 11:10:44 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.02s 1.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 4 unt; 3 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 10 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 7 ( 3 ~; 1 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 2 ( 2 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 (; 6 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ g > f > #nlpp > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i ).
tff(g,type,
g: $i > $o ).
tff(f,type,
f: $i > $o ).
tff(f_36,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X] :
( f(X)
=> g(X) )
=> ( ! [Y] : f(Y)
=> ! [Z] : g(Z) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',kalish201) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [Y_2] : f(Y_2),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [X_1] :
( g(X_1)
| ~ f(X_1) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
! [X_1] : g(X_1),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_4,c_6]) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
~ g('#skF_1'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_8,c_2]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SYN394+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 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
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 17:44:07 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 2.02/1.47 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.02/1.48
% 2.02/1.48 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.27/1.52
% 2.27/1.52 Inference rules
% 2.27/1.52 ----------------------
% 2.27/1.52 #Ref : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Sup : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Fact : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Define : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Split : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Chain : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Close : 0
% 2.27/1.52
% 2.27/1.52 Ordering : KBO
% 2.27/1.52
% 2.27/1.52 Simplification rules
% 2.27/1.52 ----------------------
% 2.27/1.52 #Subsume : 2
% 2.27/1.52 #Demod : 2
% 2.27/1.52 #Tautology : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.27/1.52 #BackRed : 0
% 2.27/1.52
% 2.27/1.52 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.27/1.52 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.27/1.52
% 2.27/1.52 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.27/1.52 ----------------------
% 2.27/1.52 Preprocessing : 0.38
% 2.27/1.52 Parsing : 0.21
% 2.27/1.52 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.27/1.52 Main loop : 0.05
% 2.27/1.52 Inferencing : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.27/1.52 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.27/1.52 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.27/1.52 Subsumption : 0.02
% 2.27/1.52 Abstraction : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 Total : 0.49
% 2.27/1.52 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.27/1.52 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------