TSTP Solution File: DAT009_1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : DAT009_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% Computer : n029.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 10:36:57 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.23s 1.86s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 41 ( 23 unt; 9 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 29 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 19 ( 9 ~; 8 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number arithmetic : 44 ( 11 atm; 10 fun; 7 num; 16 var)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 ari)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 2 >; 3 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 8 usr; 7 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 (; 22 !; 0 ?; 22 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ write > read > #nlpp > #skF_1 > #skF_2
%Foreground sorts:
tff(array,type,
array: $tType ).
%Background operators:
tff('#skE_2',type,
'#skE_2': $int ).
tff('#skE_1',type,
'#skE_1': $int ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': $int ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': $int ).
%Foreground operators:
tff(write,type,
write: ( array * $int * $int ) > array ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': array ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': array ).
tff(read,type,
read: ( array * $int ) > $int ).
tff(f_74,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [U: array,V: array,Wa: $int] :
( ( ! [Xa: $int] : $greater(read(V,Xa),Xa)
& ( U = write(V,Wa,$sum(Wa,3)) ) )
=> ! [Ya: $int] : $greater(read(U,Ya),Ya) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
tff(f_63,axiom,
! [X: array,Ya: $int,Za: $int,X1a: $int] :
( ( Ya = Za )
| ( read(write(X,Ya,X1a),Za) = read(X,Za) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/DAT001_0.ax',ax2) ).
tff(f_59,axiom,
! [U: array,Va: $int,Wa: $int] : ( read(write(U,Va,Wa),Va) = Wa ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/DAT001_0.ax',ax1) ).
tff(c_5,plain,
~ $greater(read('#skF_1','#skF_4'),'#skF_4'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_74]) ).
tff(c_20,plain,
~ $less('#skF_4',read('#skF_1','#skF_4')),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_5]) ).
tff(c_39,plain,
read('#skF_1','#skF_4') = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_20]) ).
tff(c_26,plain,
~ $less('#skF_4',read('#skF_1','#skF_4')),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_5]) ).
tff(c_46,plain,
~ $less('#skF_4','#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_39,c_26]) ).
tff(c_45,plain,
read('#skF_1','#skF_4') = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_20]) ).
tff(c_84,plain,
write('#skF_2','#skF_3',$sum(3,'#skF_3')) = '#skF_1',
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_74]) ).
tff(c_21,plain,
! [X_4: array,Y_5a: $int,X1_7a: $int,Z_6a: $int] :
( ( read(write(X_4,Y_5a,X1_7a),Z_6a) = read(X_4,Z_6a) )
| ( Z_6a = Y_5a ) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_108,plain,
! [Z_33a: $int] :
( ( read('#skF_1',Z_33a) = read('#skF_2',Z_33a) )
| ( Z_33a = '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_84,c_21]) ).
tff(c_130,plain,
( ( read('#skF_2','#skF_4') = '#skE_1' )
| ( '#skF_4' = '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_45,c_108]) ).
tff(c_172,plain,
read('#skF_2','#skF_4') = '#skE_2',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_130]) ).
tff(c_171,plain,
( ( read('#skF_2','#skF_4') = '#skE_1' )
| ( '#skF_4' = '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_45,c_108]) ).
tff(c_179,plain,
( ( '#skE_2' = '#skE_1' )
| ( '#skF_4' = '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_172,c_171]) ).
tff(c_181,plain,
'#skF_4' = '#skF_3',
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_179]) ).
tff(c_22,plain,
! [U_1: array,V_2a: $int,W_3a: $int] : ( read(write(U_1,V_2a,W_3a),V_2a) = W_3a ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_59]) ).
tff(c_133,plain,
read('#skF_1','#skF_3') = $sum(3,'#skF_3'),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_84,c_22]) ).
tff(c_158,plain,
( ( $sum(3,'#skF_3') = '#skE_1' )
| ( '#skF_4' != '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_133,c_45]) ).
tff(c_160,plain,
( ( '#skF_3' = $sum($uminus(3),'#skE_1') )
| ( '#skF_4' != '#skF_3' ) ),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_158]) ).
tff(c_221,plain,
'#skF_3' = $sum($uminus(3),'#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_181,c_160]) ).
tff(c_192,plain,
~ $less('#skF_3','#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_181,c_46]) ).
tff(c_230,plain,
~ $less($sum($uminus(3),'#skE_1'),'#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_221,c_192]) ).
tff(c_253,plain,
$false,
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_230]) ).
tff(c_256,plain,
'#skE_2' = '#skE_1',
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_179]) ).
tff(c_178,plain,
read('#skF_2','#skF_4') = '#skE_2',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_130]) ).
tff(c_264,plain,
read('#skF_2','#skF_4') = '#skE_1',
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_256,c_178]) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
! [X_10a: $int] : $greater(read('#skF_2',X_10a),X_10a),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_74]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
! [X_10a: $int] : $less(X_10a,read('#skF_2',X_10a)),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_10]) ).
tff(c_278,plain,
$less('#skF_4','#skE_1'),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_264,c_12]) ).
tff(c_282,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_46,c_278]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : DAT009_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 13:30:07 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 3.23/1.86 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.23/1.87
% 3.23/1.87 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.23/1.90
% 3.23/1.90 Inference rules
% 3.23/1.90 ----------------------
% 3.23/1.90 #Ref : 0
% 3.23/1.90 #Sup : 28
% 3.23/1.90 #Fact : 0
% 3.23/1.90 #Define : 2
% 3.23/1.90 #Split : 1
% 3.23/1.90 #Chain : 0
% 3.23/1.90 #Close : 0
% 3.23/1.90
% 3.23/1.90 Ordering : LPO
% 3.23/1.90
% 3.23/1.90 Simplification rules
% 3.23/1.90 ----------------------
% 3.23/1.90 #Subsume : 0
% 3.23/1.90 #Demod : 16
% 3.23/1.90 #Tautology : 20
% 3.23/1.90 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 3.23/1.90 #BackRed : 9
% 3.23/1.90
% 3.23/1.90 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.23/1.90 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.23/1.90
% 3.23/1.90 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.23/1.90 ----------------------
% 3.23/1.90 Preprocessing : 0.52
% 3.23/1.90 Parsing : 0.27
% 3.23/1.90 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.23/1.90 Main loop : 0.25
% 3.23/1.90 Inferencing : 0.07
% 3.23/1.90 Reduction : 0.07
% 3.23/1.90 Demodulation : 0.05
% 3.23/1.91 BG Simplification : 0.04
% 3.23/1.91 Subsumption : 0.04
% 3.23/1.91 Abstraction : 0.01
% 3.23/1.91 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.23/1.91 Cooper : 0.02
% 3.23/1.91 Total : 0.83
% 3.23/1.91 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.23/1.91 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.23/1.91 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.23/1.91 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------