TSTP Solution File: SYO296^5 by Vampire---4.8

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Vampire---4.8
% Problem  : SYO296^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -t %d %s

% 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  : 300s
% DateTime : Tue May 21 09:03:51 EDT 2024

% Result   : Theorem 0.15s 0.38s
% Output   : Refutation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem    : SYO296^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.12/0.14  % Command    : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -t %d %s
% 0.15/0.35  % Computer : n024.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   : Mon May 20 10:11:37 EDT 2024
% 0.15/0.35  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.15/0.35  This is a TH0_THM_NEQ_NAR problem
% 0.15/0.36  Running vampire_ho --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule snake_tptp_hol --cores 8 -m 12000 -t 300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.37  % (10436)lrs+1004_1:128_cond=on:e2e=on:sp=weighted_frequency:i=18:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/18Mi)
% 0.15/0.37  % (10437)lrs+10_1:1_bet=on:cnfonf=off:fd=off:hud=5:inj=on:i=3:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/3Mi)
% 0.15/0.37  % (10435)lrs+1002_1:1_au=on:bd=off:e2e=on:sd=2:sos=on:ss=axioms:i=275:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/275Mi)
% 0.15/0.37  % (10437)First to succeed.
% 0.15/0.38  % (10430)lrs+1002_1:8_bd=off:fd=off:hud=10:tnu=1:i=183:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/183Mi)
% 0.15/0.38  % (10436)Also succeeded, but the first one will report.
% 0.15/0.38  % (10434)lrs+1002_1:128_aac=none:au=on:cnfonf=lazy_not_gen_be_off:sos=all:i=2:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/2Mi)
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Refutation found. Thanks to Tanya!
% 0.15/0.38  % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38  thf(func_def_0, type, q: $i > $o).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(func_def_1, type, p: $i > $o).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(func_def_5, type, sK0: ($i > $o) > $i).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(func_def_6, type, sK1: ($i > $o) > $i).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(func_def_9, type, ph3: !>[X0: $tType]:(X0)).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f25,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    $false),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(trivial_inequality_removal,[],[f24])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f24,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ($true = $false)),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(duplicate_literal_removal,[],[f23])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f23,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ($true = $false) | ($true = $false)),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(beta_eta_normalization,[],[f12])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f12,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ($true = ((^[Y0 : $i]: ($false)) @ (sK0 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: ($false))))) | ($true = ((^[Y0 : $i]: ($false)) @ (sK1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: ($false)))))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(primitive_instantiation,[],[f10])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f10,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ( ! [X0 : $i > $o] : (($true = (X0 @ (sK1 @ X0))) | ($true = (X0 @ (sK0 @ X0)))) )),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(cnf_transformation,[],[f8])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f8,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ! [X0 : $i > $o] : ((($true = (X0 @ (sK1 @ X0))) | ($true = (X0 @ (sK0 @ X0)))) & (($true != (p @ (sK0 @ X0))) | ($true != (q @ (sK1 @ X0)))))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(skolemisation,[status(esa),new_symbols(skolem,[sK0,sK1])],[f6,f7])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f7,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ! [X0 : $i > $o] : (? [X1,X2] : ((((X0 @ X2) = $true) | ((X0 @ X1) = $true)) & (((p @ X1) != $true) | ((q @ X2) != $true))) => ((($true = (X0 @ (sK1 @ X0))) | ($true = (X0 @ (sK0 @ X0)))) & (($true != (p @ (sK0 @ X0))) | ($true != (q @ (sK1 @ X0))))))),
% 0.15/0.38    introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f6,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ! [X0 : $i > $o] : ? [X1,X2] : ((((X0 @ X2) = $true) | ((X0 @ X1) = $true)) & (((p @ X1) != $true) | ((q @ X2) != $true)))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(ennf_transformation,[],[f5])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f5,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ~? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X2,X1] : ((((X0 @ X2) = $true) | ((X0 @ X1) = $true)) => (((p @ X1) = $true) & ((q @ X2) = $true)))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(fool_elimination,[],[f4])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f4,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38    ~? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ X1) | (X0 @ X2)) => ((p @ X1) & (q @ X2)))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(rectify,[],[f2])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f2,negated_conjecture,(
% 0.15/0.38    ~? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ X1) | (X0 @ X2)) => ((p @ X1) & (q @ X2)))),
% 0.15/0.38    inference(negated_conjecture,[],[f1])).
% 0.15/0.38  thf(f1,conjecture,(
% 0.15/0.38    ? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ X1) | (X0 @ X2)) => ((p @ X1) & (q @ X2)))),
% 0.15/0.38    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cBLEDSOE5D)).
% 0.15/0.38  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Version: Vampire 4.8 HO - Sledgehammer schedules (2023-10-19)
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Termination reason: Refutation
% 0.15/0.38  
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Memory used [KB]: 5500
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Time elapsed: 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)Instructions burned: 2 (million)
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38  % (10437)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38  % (10429)Success in time 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.38  % Vampire---4.8 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------