TSTP Solution File: GEO176+2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : GEO176+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : n003.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 10:38:26 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.61s 1.91s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.61s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 6 unt; 10 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 27 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 24 ( 10 ~; 9 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 12 ( 6 >; 6 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 (; 13 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ distinct_points > distinct_lines > convergent_lines > apart_point_and_line > line_connecting > intersection_point > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_3 > #skF_1 > #skF_4
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(line_connecting,type,
line_connecting: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(distinct_points,type,
distinct_points: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(intersection_point,type,
intersection_point: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(apart_point_and_line,type,
apart_point_and_line: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(convergent_lines,type,
convergent_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': $i ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': $i ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i ).
tff(distinct_lines,type,
distinct_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': $i ).
tff(f_142,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X,Y,U,V] :
( ( distinct_points(X,Y)
& convergent_lines(U,V)
& ( apart_point_and_line(X,U)
| apart_point_and_line(X,V) ) )
=> distinct_points(X,intersection_point(U,V)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
tff(f_99,axiom,
! [X,Y,Z] :
( convergent_lines(X,Y)
=> ( ( apart_point_and_line(Z,X)
| apart_point_and_line(Z,Y) )
=> distinct_points(Z,intersection_point(X,Y)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',con2) ).
tff(c_34,plain,
convergent_lines('#skF_3','#skF_4'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_142]) ).
tff(c_32,plain,
( apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_4')
| apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_3') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_142]) ).
tff(c_40,plain,
apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_3'),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_32]) ).
tff(c_345,plain,
! [Z_74,X_75,Y_76] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(Z_74,X_75)
| distinct_points(Z_74,intersection_point(X_75,Y_76))
| ~ convergent_lines(X_75,Y_76) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_99]) ).
tff(c_30,plain,
~ distinct_points('#skF_1',intersection_point('#skF_3','#skF_4')),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_142]) ).
tff(c_350,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_3')
| ~ convergent_lines('#skF_3','#skF_4') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_345,c_30]) ).
tff(c_359,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_34,c_40,c_350]) ).
tff(c_360,plain,
apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_4'),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_32]) ).
tff(c_479,plain,
! [Z_104,Y_105,X_106] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(Z_104,Y_105)
| distinct_points(Z_104,intersection_point(X_106,Y_105))
| ~ convergent_lines(X_106,Y_105) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_99]) ).
tff(c_484,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line('#skF_1','#skF_4')
| ~ convergent_lines('#skF_3','#skF_4') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_479,c_30]) ).
tff(c_493,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_34,c_360,c_484]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.14 % Problem : GEO176+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.08/0.15 % 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
% 0.16/0.36 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % DateTime : Fri Aug 4 00:29:53 EDT 2023
% 0.16/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 3.61/1.91 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.61/1.91
% 3.61/1.91 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.61/1.94
% 3.61/1.94 Inference rules
% 3.61/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.61/1.94 #Ref : 0
% 3.61/1.94 #Sup : 92
% 3.61/1.94 #Fact : 6
% 3.61/1.94 #Define : 0
% 3.61/1.94 #Split : 1
% 3.61/1.94 #Chain : 0
% 3.61/1.94 #Close : 0
% 3.61/1.94
% 3.61/1.94 Ordering : KBO
% 3.61/1.94
% 3.61/1.94 Simplification rules
% 3.61/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.61/1.94 #Subsume : 10
% 3.61/1.94 #Demod : 22
% 3.61/1.94 #Tautology : 16
% 3.61/1.94 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 3.61/1.94 #BackRed : 0
% 3.61/1.94
% 3.61/1.94 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.61/1.94 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.61/1.94
% 3.61/1.94 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.61/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.61/1.94 Preprocessing : 0.46
% 3.61/1.94 Parsing : 0.26
% 3.61/1.94 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.61/1.94 Main loop : 0.41
% 3.61/1.94 Inferencing : 0.18
% 3.61/1.94 Reduction : 0.10
% 3.61/1.94 Demodulation : 0.06
% 3.61/1.94 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 3.61/1.94 Subsumption : 0.09
% 3.61/1.94 Abstraction : 0.01
% 3.61/1.94 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.61/1.94 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.61/1.94 Total : 0.92
% 3.61/1.94 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.61/1.94 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.61/1.94 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.61/1.94 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------