TSTP Solution File: COM016+4 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : COM016+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% 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 : 600s
% DateTime : Fri Jul 15 01:14:05 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 1.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 79 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 17 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 87 ( 24 ~; 35 |; 28 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 6 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( aElement0(X1)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& ( X1 = xb
| aReductOfIn0(xb,X1,xR)
| ? [X2] :
( aElement0(X2)
& aReductOfIn0(X2,X1,xR)
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(X2,xR,xb) )
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| sdtmndtasgtdt0(X1,xR,xb) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__) ).
fof(m__731_02,hypothesis,
( ( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| ? [X1] :
( aElement0(X1)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb) ) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xb)
& ( aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR)
| ? [X1] :
( aElement0(X1)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xc) ) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xc) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__731_02) ).
fof(m__731,hypothesis,
( aElement0(xa)
& aElement0(xb)
& aElement0(xc) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__731) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( aElement0(X1)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& ( X1 = xb
| aReductOfIn0(xb,X1,xR)
| ? [X2] :
( aElement0(X2)
& aReductOfIn0(X2,X1,xR)
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(X2,xR,xb) )
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| sdtmndtasgtdt0(X1,xR,xb) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X3,X4] :
( ( X3 != xb
| ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X3,xa,xR) )
& ( ~ aReductOfIn0(xb,X3,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X3,xa,xR) )
& ( ~ aElement0(X4)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X4,X3,xR)
| ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X4,xR,xb)
| ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X3,xa,xR) )
& ( ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X3,xR,xb)
| ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X3,xa,xR) )
& ( ~ sdtmndtasgtdt0(X3,xR,xb)
| ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X3,xa,xR) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,hypothesis,
( ( aElement0(esk7_0)
| aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(esk7_0,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR) )
& ( sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk7_0,xR,xb)
| aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xb)
& ( aElement0(esk8_0)
| aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(esk8_0,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR) )
& ( sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk8_0,xR,xc)
| aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xc) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__731_02])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X1)
| X1 != xb ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk7_0,xa,xR) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElement0(xb),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__731]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aElement0(esk7_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X1)
| ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk7_0,xR,xb) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
aReductOfIn0(esk7_0,xa,xR),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
aElement0(esk7_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_9]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_14]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : COM016+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n024.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 : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 16 17:32:18 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/1.41 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.41 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.23/1.41 # Preprocessing time : 0.040 s
% 0.23/1.41
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof found!
% 0.23/1.41 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/1.41 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object total steps : 16
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object clause steps : 10
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object formula steps : 6
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object generating inferences : 4
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 9
% 0.23/1.41 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.23/1.41 # Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.23/1.41 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Initial clauses : 337
% 0.23/1.41 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.23/1.41 # Initial clauses in saturation : 333
% 0.23/1.41 # Processed clauses : 356
% 0.23/1.41 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.23/1.41 # ...remaining for further processing : 354
% 0.23/1.41 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 111
% 0.23/1.41 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Generated clauses : 3121
% 0.23/1.41 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 3006
% 0.23/1.41 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 11
% 0.23/1.41 # Paramodulations : 3021
% 0.23/1.41 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Equation resolutions : 111
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of processed clauses : 251
% 0.23/1.41 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.23/1.41 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/1.41 # Non-unit-clauses : 234
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2881
% 0.23/1.41 # ...number of literals in the above : 40435
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 53255
% 0.23/1.41 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3383
% 0.23/1.41 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 13
% 0.23/1.41 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 879
% 0.23/1.41 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.23/1.41 # BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Termbank termtop insertions : 134298
% 0.23/1.41
% 0.23/1.41 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.41 # User time : 0.254 s
% 0.23/1.41 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/1.41 # Total time : 0.258 s
% 0.23/1.41 # Maximum resident set size: 7296 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------