TSTP Solution File: CSR066+5 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : CSR066+5 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n028.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 02:47:19 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 17.88s 11.45s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 17.88s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   18 (   7 unt;   0 nHn;  18 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   31 (   0 equ;  18 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    6 (   5 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   17 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_2549,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
    | ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_2549) ).

cnf(i_0_1772,plain,
    ( tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
    | ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_1772) ).

cnf(i_0_354,plain,
    ( tptp_8_271(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),X1)
    | ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_354) ).

cnf(i_0_1700,plain,
    shavingrazor_manual(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_1700) ).

cnf(i_0_103,plain,
    ( isa(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,X2,X3,X4),X3)
    | ~ isa(X1,X4)
    | ~ relationexistsall(X2,X3,X4) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_103) ).

cnf(i_0_355,plain,
    relationexistsall(c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_355) ).

cnf(i_0_2036,plain,
    ( isa(X1,c_shavingrazor_manual)
    | ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-gdm2b859/input.p',i_0_2036) ).

cnf(c_0_2557,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
    | ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual) ),
    i_0_2549 ).

cnf(c_0_2558,plain,
    ( tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
    | ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
    i_0_1772 ).

cnf(c_0_2559,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual)
    | ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2557,c_0_2558]) ).

cnf(c_0_2560,plain,
    ( tptp_8_271(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),X1)
    | ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
    i_0_354 ).

cnf(c_0_2561,plain,
    shavingrazor_manual(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual),
    i_0_1700 ).

cnf(c_0_2562,plain,
    ~ isa(f_relationexistsallfn(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),c_tptpcol_16_25972),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2559,c_0_2560]),c_0_2561])]) ).

cnf(c_0_2563,plain,
    ( isa(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,X2,X3,X4),X3)
    | ~ isa(X1,X4)
    | ~ relationexistsall(X2,X3,X4) ),
    i_0_103 ).

cnf(c_0_2564,plain,
    relationexistsall(c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),
    i_0_355 ).

cnf(c_0_2565,plain,
    ( isa(X1,c_shavingrazor_manual)
    | ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
    i_0_2036 ).

cnf(c_0_2566,plain,
    ~ isa(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual,c_shavingrazor_manual),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2562,c_0_2563]),c_0_2564])]) ).

cnf(c_0_2567,plain,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2565,c_0_2561]),c_0_2566]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem  : CSR066+5 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.03/0.13  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n028.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 : Sat Jun 11 08:10:06 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.45  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 8.80/8.99  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 8.80/8.99  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 8.80/8.99  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 8.80/8.99  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 17.88/11.45  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 17.88/11.45  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 17.88/11.45  # Preprocessing time       : 0.048 s
% 17.88/11.45  
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof found!
% 17.88/11.45  # SZS status Theorem
% 17.88/11.45  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object total steps             : 18
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object clause steps            : 11
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object formula steps           : 7
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object conjectures             : 3
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 2
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 1
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 7
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 7
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object generating inferences   : 4
% 17.88/11.45  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 5
% 17.88/11.45  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 17.88/11.45  # Parsed axioms                        : 2548
% 17.88/11.45  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Initial clauses                      : 2548
% 17.88/11.45  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 2548
% 17.88/11.45  # Processed clauses                    : 2592
% 17.88/11.45  # ...of these trivial                  : 132
% 17.88/11.45  # ...subsumed                          : 28
% 17.88/11.45  # ...remaining for further processing  : 2431
% 17.88/11.45  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 5
% 17.88/11.45  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Backward-subsumed                    : 5
% 17.88/11.45  # Backward-rewritten                   : 7
% 17.88/11.45  # Generated clauses                    : 7353
% 17.88/11.45  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 4833
% 17.88/11.45  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Paramodulations                      : 7348
% 17.88/11.45  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Equation resolutions                 : 5
% 17.88/11.45  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Current number of processed clauses  : 2414
% 17.88/11.45  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 2240
% 17.88/11.45  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 17.88/11.45  #    Negative unit clauses             : 7
% 17.88/11.45  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 167
% 17.88/11.45  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4546
% 17.88/11.45  # ...number of literals in the above   : 7155
% 17.88/11.45  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Current number of archived clauses   : 12
% 17.88/11.45  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5632
% 17.88/11.45  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5014
% 17.88/11.45  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 29
% 17.88/11.45  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1344
% 17.88/11.45  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 18856
% 17.88/11.45  # BW rewrite match successes           : 4
% 17.88/11.45  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 17.88/11.45  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 106110
% 17.88/11.45  
% 17.88/11.45  # -------------------------------------------------
% 17.88/11.45  # User time                : 0.132 s
% 17.88/11.45  # System time              : 0.009 s
% 17.88/11.45  # Total time               : 0.141 s
% 17.88/11.45  # ...preprocessing         : 0.048 s
% 17.88/11.45  # ...main loop             : 0.093 s
% 17.88/11.45  # Maximum resident set size: 18156 pages
% 17.88/11.45  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------