TSTP Solution File: GEO178+2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : GEO178+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/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 : n020.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 10:38:27 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.73s 1.98s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.91s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 11
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 24 ( 8 unt; 9 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 28 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 24 ( 11 ~; 7 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 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 : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 (; 12 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ distinct_points > distinct_lines > convergent_lines > apart_point_and_line > line_connecting > intersection_point > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_3 > #skF_1
%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(f_140,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X,Y,Z] :
( ( distinct_points(X,Y)
& apart_point_and_line(Z,line_connecting(X,Y)) )
=> ( distinct_points(Z,X)
& distinct_points(Z,Y) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
tff(f_91,axiom,
! [X,Y,Z] :
( distinct_points(X,Y)
=> ( apart_point_and_line(Z,line_connecting(X,Y))
=> ( distinct_points(Z,X)
& distinct_points(Z,Y) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',con1) ).
tff(c_30,plain,
( ~ distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_2')
| ~ distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_1') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_140]) ).
tff(c_44,plain,
~ distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_1'),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_30]) ).
tff(c_34,plain,
distinct_points('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_140]) ).
tff(c_32,plain,
apart_point_and_line('#skF_3',line_connecting('#skF_1','#skF_2')),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_140]) ).
tff(c_82,plain,
! [Z_53,X_54,Y_55] :
( distinct_points(Z_53,X_54)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(Z_53,line_connecting(X_54,Y_55))
| ~ distinct_points(X_54,Y_55) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_91]) ).
tff(c_85,plain,
( distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_1')
| ~ distinct_points('#skF_1','#skF_2') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_32,c_82]) ).
tff(c_88,plain,
distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_34,c_85]) ).
tff(c_90,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_44,c_88]) ).
tff(c_91,plain,
~ distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_2'),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_30]) ).
tff(c_684,plain,
! [Z_104,Y_105,X_106] :
( distinct_points(Z_104,Y_105)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(Z_104,line_connecting(X_106,Y_105))
| ~ distinct_points(X_106,Y_105) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_91]) ).
tff(c_693,plain,
( distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_2')
| ~ distinct_points('#skF_1','#skF_2') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_32,c_684]) ).
tff(c_702,plain,
distinct_points('#skF_3','#skF_2'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_34,c_693]) ).
tff(c_704,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_91,c_702]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14 % Problem : GEO178+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.15 % 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
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Fri Aug 4 00:37:07 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 3.73/1.98 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.73/1.98
% 3.73/1.98 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.91/2.01
% 3.91/2.01 Inference rules
% 3.91/2.01 ----------------------
% 3.91/2.01 #Ref : 0
% 3.91/2.01 #Sup : 95
% 3.91/2.01 #Fact : 26
% 3.91/2.01 #Define : 0
% 3.91/2.01 #Split : 1
% 3.91/2.01 #Chain : 0
% 3.91/2.01 #Close : 0
% 3.91/2.01
% 3.91/2.01 Ordering : KBO
% 3.91/2.01
% 3.91/2.01 Simplification rules
% 3.91/2.01 ----------------------
% 3.91/2.01 #Subsume : 22
% 3.91/2.01 #Demod : 42
% 3.91/2.01 #Tautology : 38
% 3.91/2.01 #SimpNegUnit : 3
% 3.91/2.01 #BackRed : 0
% 3.91/2.01
% 3.91/2.01 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.91/2.01 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.91/2.01
% 3.91/2.01 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.91/2.01 ----------------------
% 3.91/2.01 Preprocessing : 0.48
% 3.91/2.01 Parsing : 0.27
% 3.91/2.01 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.91/2.01 Main loop : 0.44
% 3.91/2.01 Inferencing : 0.19
% 3.91/2.01 Reduction : 0.10
% 3.91/2.01 Demodulation : 0.07
% 3.91/2.01 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 3.91/2.01 Subsumption : 0.10
% 3.91/2.01 Abstraction : 0.02
% 3.91/2.01 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.91/2.01 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.91/2.01 Total : 0.97
% 3.91/2.01 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.91/2.01 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.91/2.01 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.91/2.01 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------