TSTP Solution File: CSR113+10 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : CSR113+10 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n032.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 02:49:00 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 7.42s 2.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 7.42s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 33 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 33 RR)
% Number of literals : 99 ( 0 equ; 76 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 11 ( 10 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 86 ( 10 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_839,negated_conjecture,
( ~ loc(X1,X2)
| ~ scar(X1,X3)
| ~ attr(X4,X5)
| ~ flp(X2,X4)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1)
| ~ val(X5,usa_0) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_839) ).
cnf(i_0_794,plain,
( val(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_794) ).
cnf(i_0_795,plain,
( sub(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),name_1_1)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_795) ).
cnf(i_0_798,plain,
( attr(esk48_3(X1,X2,X3),esk49_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_798) ).
cnf(i_0_696,plain,
( flp(X1,X2)
| ~ in(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_696) ).
cnf(i_0_799,plain,
( in(esk50_3(X1,X2,X3),esk48_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_799) ).
cnf(i_0_708,plain,
( loc(esk27_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_708) ).
cnf(i_0_706,plain,
( subs(esk27_2(X1,X2),stehen_1_1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_706) ).
cnf(i_0_707,plain,
( scar(esk27_2(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_707) ).
cnf(i_0_797,plain,
( loc(X1,esk50_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_797) ).
cnf(i_0_599,plain,
state_adjective_state_binding(amerikanisch__1_1,usa_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_599) ).
cnf(i_0_341,hypothesis,
prop(c81355,amerikanisch__1_1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-_f6o8zd3/input.p',i_0_341) ).
cnf(c_0_852,negated_conjecture,
( ~ loc(X1,X2)
| ~ scar(X1,X3)
| ~ attr(X4,X5)
| ~ flp(X2,X4)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1)
| ~ sub(X5,name_1_1)
| ~ val(X5,usa_0) ),
i_0_839 ).
cnf(c_0_853,plain,
( val(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_794 ).
cnf(c_0_854,plain,
( sub(esk49_3(X1,X2,X3),name_1_1)
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_795 ).
cnf(c_0_855,negated_conjecture,
( ~ scar(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X3)
| ~ flp(X3,X4)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X5,usa_0)
| ~ attr(X4,esk49_3(X6,X5,usa_0))
| ~ prop(X6,X5)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_852,c_0_853]),c_0_854]) ).
cnf(c_0_856,plain,
( attr(esk48_3(X1,X2,X3),esk49_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_798 ).
cnf(c_0_857,plain,
( ~ scar(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X3)
| ~ flp(X3,esk48_3(X4,X5,usa_0))
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X5,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X4,X5)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_855,c_0_856]) ).
cnf(c_0_858,plain,
( flp(X1,X2)
| ~ in(X1,X2) ),
i_0_696 ).
cnf(c_0_859,plain,
( ~ scar(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X3)
| ~ in(X3,esk48_3(X4,X5,usa_0))
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X5,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X4,X5)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_857,c_0_858]) ).
cnf(c_0_860,plain,
( in(esk50_3(X1,X2,X3),esk48_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_799 ).
cnf(c_0_861,plain,
( ~ scar(X1,X2)
| ~ loc(X1,esk50_3(X3,X4,usa_0))
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X4,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X3,X4)
| ~ subs(X1,stehen_1_1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_859,c_0_860]) ).
cnf(c_0_862,plain,
( loc(esk27_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_708 ).
cnf(c_0_863,plain,
( subs(esk27_2(X1,X2),stehen_1_1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_706 ).
cnf(c_0_864,plain,
( ~ scar(esk27_2(X1,esk50_3(X2,X3,usa_0)),X4)
| ~ loc(X1,esk50_3(X2,X3,usa_0))
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X3,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X2,X3) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_861,c_0_862]),c_0_863]) ).
cnf(c_0_865,plain,
( scar(esk27_2(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ loc(X1,X2) ),
i_0_707 ).
cnf(c_0_866,plain,
( ~ loc(X1,esk50_3(X2,X3,usa_0))
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X3,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X2,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_864,c_0_865]) ).
cnf(c_0_867,plain,
( loc(X1,esk50_3(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ prop(X1,X2)
| ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X2,X3) ),
i_0_797 ).
cnf(c_0_868,plain,
( ~ state_adjective_state_binding(X1,usa_0)
| ~ prop(X2,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_866,c_0_867]) ).
cnf(c_0_869,plain,
state_adjective_state_binding(amerikanisch__1_1,usa_0),
i_0_599 ).
cnf(c_0_870,hypothesis,
prop(c81355,amerikanisch__1_1),
i_0_341 ).
cnf(c_0_871,plain,
~ prop(X1,amerikanisch__1_1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_868,c_0_869]) ).
cnf(c_0_872,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_870,c_0_871]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.09 % Problem : CSR113+10 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.09 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.09/0.29 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.09/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.09/0.29 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.29 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.09/0.29 % DateTime : Fri Jun 10 03:06:55 EDT 2022
% 0.09/0.29 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.37 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.14/0.49 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.14/0.49 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.14/0.49 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.14/0.49 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 7.42/2.47 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 7.42/2.47 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.42/2.47 # Preprocessing time : 0.023 s
% 7.42/2.47
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof found!
% 7.42/2.47 # SZS status Theorem
% 7.42/2.47 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object total steps : 33
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object clause steps : 21
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object formula steps : 12
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object conjectures : 3
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object formula conjectures : 1
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object initial clauses used : 12
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object initial formulas used : 12
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object generating inferences : 8
% 7.42/2.47 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 7.42/2.47 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.42/2.47 # Parsed axioms : 859
% 7.42/2.47 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Initial clauses : 859
% 7.42/2.47 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Initial clauses in saturation : 859
% 7.42/2.47 # Processed clauses : 949
% 7.42/2.47 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 7.42/2.47 # ...subsumed : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # ...remaining for further processing : 947
% 7.42/2.47 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Backward-subsumed : 15
% 7.42/2.47 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Generated clauses : 848
% 7.42/2.47 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 847
% 7.42/2.47 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 10
% 7.42/2.47 # Paramodulations : 847
% 7.42/2.47 # Factorizations : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Current number of processed clauses : 931
% 7.42/2.47 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 569
% 7.42/2.47 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 7.42/2.47 # Non-unit-clauses : 361
% 7.42/2.47 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 731
% 7.42/2.47 # ...number of literals in the above : 3121
% 7.42/2.47 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Current number of archived clauses : 16
% 7.42/2.47 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 37534
% 7.42/2.47 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8231
% 7.42/2.47 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 25
% 7.42/2.47 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3170
% 7.42/2.47 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Condensation successes : 0
% 7.42/2.47 # Termbank termtop insertions : 27629
% 7.42/2.47
% 7.42/2.47 # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.42/2.47 # User time : 0.058 s
% 7.42/2.47 # System time : 0.006 s
% 7.42/2.47 # Total time : 0.064 s
% 7.42/2.47 # ...preprocessing : 0.023 s
% 7.42/2.47 # ...main loop : 0.042 s
% 7.42/2.47 # Maximum resident set size: 9708 pages
% 7.42/2.47
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------