TSTP Solution File: ANA041-2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : ANA041-2 : 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/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 : n010.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 10:32:52 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.81s 1.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 2
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 5 unt; 6 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 5 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 2 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 2 >; 3 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 (; 4 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_lessequals > v_h > #nlpp > v_xb > v_xa > t_c > c_0
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(v_h,type,
v_h: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(v_xa,type,
v_xa: $i ).
tff(t_c,type,
t_c: $i ).
tff(c_0,type,
c_0: $i ).
tff(c_lessequals,type,
c_lessequals: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(v_xb,type,
v_xb: $i ).
tff(f_27,axiom,
! [V_U,V_V] : c_lessequals(c_0,v_h(V_U,V_V),t_c),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_29,axiom,
~ c_lessequals(c_0,v_h(v_xa,v_xb),t_c),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [V_U_1,V_V_2] : c_lessequals(c_0,v_h(V_U_1,V_V_2),t_c),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
~ c_lessequals(c_0,v_h(v_xa,v_xb),t_c),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_29]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_4]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : ANA041-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.13/0.14 % 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
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n010.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 15:19:59 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 1.81/1.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.81/1.46
% 1.81/1.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.09/1.50
% 2.09/1.50 Inference rules
% 2.09/1.50 ----------------------
% 2.09/1.50 #Ref : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Sup : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Fact : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Define : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Split : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Chain : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Close : 0
% 2.09/1.50
% 2.09/1.50 Ordering : KBO
% 2.09/1.50
% 2.09/1.50 Simplification rules
% 2.09/1.50 ----------------------
% 2.09/1.50 #Subsume : 1
% 2.09/1.50 #Demod : 1
% 2.09/1.50 #Tautology : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.09/1.50 #BackRed : 0
% 2.09/1.50
% 2.09/1.50 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.09/1.50 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.09/1.50
% 2.09/1.50 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.09/1.50 ----------------------
% 2.09/1.50 Preprocessing : 0.38
% 2.09/1.50 Parsing : 0.21
% 2.09/1.50 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.09/1.50 Main loop : 0.05
% 2.09/1.50 Inferencing : 0.00
% 2.09/1.50 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.09/1.51 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.09/1.51 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.09/1.51 Subsumption : 0.03
% 2.09/1.51 Abstraction : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 Total : 0.50
% 2.09/1.51 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.09/1.51 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------