TSTP Solution File: DAT011_1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : DAT011_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/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 : 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 : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 10:36:57 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.11s 1.83s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 41 ( 22 unt; 9 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 50 ( 21 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 30 ( 12 ~; 12 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number arithmetic : 83 ( 27 atm; 11 fun; 28 num; 17 var)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 ari)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 2 >; 3 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 8 usr; 9 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 (; 23 !; 0 ?; 23 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ write > read > #nlpp > #skF_1 > #skF_2
%Foreground sorts:
tff(array,type,
array: $tType ).
%Background operators:
tff('#skE_1',type,
'#skE_1': $int ).
tff('#skF_5',type,
'#skF_5': $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_82,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [U: array,V: array,Wa: $int,Xa: $int] :
( ( ! [Ya: $int] :
( ( $lesseq(Wa,Ya)
& $lesseq(Ya,Xa) )
=> $greater(read(V,Ya),0) )
& ( U = write(V,$sum(Xa,1),3) ) )
=> ! [Za: $int] :
( ( $lesseq(Wa,Za)
& $lesseq(Za,$sum(Xa,1)) )
=> $greater(read(U,Za),0) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
tff(f_59,axiom,
! [U: array,Va: $int,Wa: $int] : ( read(write(U,Va,Wa),Va) = Wa ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/DAT001_0.ax',ax1) ).
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/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/DAT001_0.ax',ax2) ).
tff(c_9,plain,
$lesseq('#skF_3','#skF_5'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_20,plain,
~ $less('#skF_5','#skF_3'),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_9]) ).
tff(c_5,plain,
~ $greater(read('#skF_1','#skF_5'),0),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_25,plain,
~ $less(0,read('#skF_1','#skF_5')),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_5]) ).
tff(c_32,plain,
read('#skF_1','#skF_5') = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_25]) ).
tff(c_31,plain,
~ $less(0,read('#skF_1','#skF_5')),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_5]) ).
tff(c_39,plain,
~ $less(0,'#skE_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_32,c_31]) ).
tff(c_66,plain,
write('#skF_2',$sum(1,'#skF_4'),3) = '#skF_1',
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_27,plain,
! [U_1: array,V_2a: $int,W_3a: $int] : ( read(write(U_1,V_2a,W_3a),V_2a) = W_3a ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_59]) ).
tff(c_87,plain,
read('#skF_1',$sum(1,'#skF_4')) = 3,
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_66,c_27]) ).
tff(c_38,plain,
read('#skF_1','#skF_5') = '#skE_1',
inference(define,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_25]) ).
tff(c_104,plain,
( ( '#skE_1' = 3 )
| ( '#skF_5' != $sum(1,'#skF_4') ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_87,c_38]) ).
tff(c_111,plain,
'#skF_5' != $sum(1,'#skF_4'),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_104]) ).
tff(c_19,plain,
write('#skF_2',$sum(1,'#skF_4'),3) = '#skF_1',
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_113,plain,
! [X_25: array,Y_26a: $int,X1_27a: $int,Z_28a: $int] :
( ( read(write(X_25,Y_26a,X1_27a),Z_28a) = read(X_25,Z_28a) )
| ( Z_28a = Y_26a ) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_63]) ).
tff(c_140,plain,
! [Z_29a: $int] :
( ( read('#skF_1',Z_29a) = read('#skF_2',Z_29a) )
| ( Z_29a = $sum(1,'#skF_4') ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_19,c_113]) ).
tff(c_166,plain,
( ( read('#skF_2','#skF_5') = '#skE_1' )
| ( '#skF_5' = $sum(1,'#skF_4') ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_140,c_38]) ).
tff(c_181,plain,
read('#skF_2','#skF_5') = '#skE_1',
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_111,c_166]) ).
tff(c_13,plain,
! [Y_10a: $int] :
( $greater(read('#skF_2',Y_10a),0)
| ~ $lesseq('#skF_3',Y_10a)
| ~ $lesseq(Y_10a,'#skF_4') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_15,plain,
! [Y_10a: $int] :
( $less(0,read('#skF_2',Y_10a))
| $less(Y_10a,'#skF_3')
| $less('#skF_4',Y_10a) ),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_13]) ).
tff(c_187,plain,
( $less(0,'#skE_1')
| $less('#skF_5','#skF_3')
| $less('#skF_4','#skF_5') ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_181,c_15]) ).
tff(c_197,plain,
( $less('#skF_5','#skF_3')
| $less('#skF_4','#skF_5') ),
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_39,c_187]) ).
tff(c_205,plain,
$less('#skF_4','#skF_5'),
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_20,c_197]) ).
tff(c_7,plain,
$lesseq('#skF_5',$sum('#skF_4',1)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).
tff(c_21,plain,
~ $less($sum(1,'#skF_4'),'#skF_5'),
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LRFIA')],[c_7]) ).
tff(c_207,plain,
$false,
inference(close,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_205,c_111,c_21]) ).
tff(c_210,plain,
'#skE_1' = 3,
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_104]) ).
tff(c_217,plain,
~ $less(0,3),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_210,c_39]) ).
tff(c_223,plain,
$false,
inference(backgroundSimplification,[status(thm),theory('LIA')],[c_217]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : DAT011_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % 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 : n028.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 13:27:54 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 3.11/1.83 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.11/1.84
% 3.11/1.84 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.11/1.86
% 3.11/1.86 Inference rules
% 3.11/1.86 ----------------------
% 3.11/1.86 #Ref : 0
% 3.11/1.86 #Sup : 25
% 3.11/1.86 #Fact : 0
% 3.11/1.86 #Define : 1
% 3.11/1.86 #Split : 1
% 3.11/1.86 #Chain : 0
% 3.11/1.86 #Close : 1
% 3.11/1.86
% 3.11/1.86 Ordering : LPO
% 3.11/1.86
% 3.11/1.86 Simplification rules
% 3.11/1.86 ----------------------
% 3.11/1.86 #Subsume : 1
% 3.11/1.86 #Demod : 4
% 3.11/1.86 #Tautology : 19
% 3.11/1.86 #SimpNegUnit : 4
% 3.11/1.86 #BackRed : 2
% 3.11/1.86
% 3.11/1.86 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.11/1.86 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.11/1.86
% 3.11/1.86 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.11/1.86 ----------------------
% 3.11/1.86 Preprocessing : 0.51
% 3.11/1.86 Parsing : 0.25
% 3.11/1.87 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.11/1.87 Main loop : 0.23
% 3.11/1.87 Inferencing : 0.06
% 3.11/1.87 Reduction : 0.05
% 3.11/1.87 Demodulation : 0.04
% 3.11/1.87 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 3.11/1.87 Subsumption : 0.03
% 3.11/1.87 Abstraction : 0.01
% 3.11/1.87 MUC search : 0.01
% 3.11/1.87 Cooper : 0.03
% 3.11/1.87 Total : 0.78
% 3.11/1.87 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.11/1.87 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.11/1.87 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.11/1.87 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------