TSTP Solution File: GEO218+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : GEO218+1 : 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 : n031.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 10:38:43 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.46s 1.90s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.76s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 15
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 37 ( 12 unt; 10 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 57 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 56 ( 26 ~; 24 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 14 ( 7 >; 7 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 34 (; 34 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ unorthogonal_lines > 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(unorthogonal_lines,type,
unorthogonal_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(distinct_lines,type,
distinct_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(f_203,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [L,M,N] :
( ( ~ convergent_lines(L,M)
& ~ unorthogonal_lines(L,N) )
=> ~ unorthogonal_lines(M,N) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
tff(f_162,axiom,
! [L,M] :
~ ( ~ convergent_lines(L,M)
& ~ unorthogonal_lines(L,M) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+4.ax',coipo1) ).
tff(f_77,axiom,
! [X,Y,Z] :
( convergent_lines(X,Y)
=> ( convergent_lines(X,Z)
| convergent_lines(Y,Z) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ax6) ).
tff(f_59,axiom,
! [X] : ~ convergent_lines(X,X),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',apart3) ).
tff(f_181,axiom,
! [L,M,N] :
( ( ( ~ convergent_lines(L,M)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(L,M) )
& ( ~ convergent_lines(L,N)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(L,N) ) )
=> ( ~ convergent_lines(M,N)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(M,N) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+4.ax',cotno1) ).
tff(c_46,plain,
~ convergent_lines('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_203]) ).
tff(c_50,plain,
! [L_45,M_46] :
( unorthogonal_lines(L_45,M_46)
| convergent_lines(L_45,M_46) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_162]) ).
tff(c_44,plain,
~ unorthogonal_lines('#skF_1','#skF_3'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_203]) ).
tff(c_54,plain,
convergent_lines('#skF_1','#skF_3'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_50,c_44]) ).
tff(c_59,plain,
! [Y_55,Z_56,X_57] :
( convergent_lines(Y_55,Z_56)
| convergent_lines(X_57,Z_56)
| ~ convergent_lines(X_57,Y_55) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_77]) ).
tff(c_63,plain,
! [Z_58] :
( convergent_lines('#skF_3',Z_58)
| convergent_lines('#skF_1',Z_58) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_54,c_59]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
! [Y_11,Z_12,X_10] :
( convergent_lines(Y_11,Z_12)
| convergent_lines(X_10,Z_12)
| ~ convergent_lines(X_10,Y_11) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_77]) ).
tff(c_105,plain,
! [Z_69,Z_70] :
( convergent_lines(Z_69,Z_70)
| convergent_lines('#skF_3',Z_70)
| convergent_lines('#skF_1',Z_69) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_63,c_12]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [X_3] : ~ convergent_lines(X_3,X_3),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_59]) ).
tff(c_135,plain,
! [Z_69] :
( convergent_lines(Z_69,'#skF_3')
| convergent_lines('#skF_1',Z_69) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_105,c_6]) ).
tff(c_42,plain,
unorthogonal_lines('#skF_2','#skF_3'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_203]) ).
tff(c_194,plain,
! [L_82,M_83,N_84] :
( convergent_lines(L_82,M_83)
| convergent_lines(L_82,N_84)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(M_83,N_84)
| ~ convergent_lines(M_83,N_84) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_181]) ).
tff(c_206,plain,
! [L_82] :
( convergent_lines(L_82,'#skF_2')
| convergent_lines(L_82,'#skF_3')
| ~ convergent_lines('#skF_2','#skF_3') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_42,c_194]) ).
tff(c_207,plain,
~ convergent_lines('#skF_2','#skF_3'),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_206]) ).
tff(c_210,plain,
convergent_lines('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_135,c_207]) ).
tff(c_217,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_46,c_210]) ).
tff(c_219,plain,
convergent_lines('#skF_2','#skF_3'),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_206]) ).
tff(c_288,plain,
! [L_89,M_90,N_91] :
( convergent_lines(L_89,M_90)
| unorthogonal_lines(L_89,N_91)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(M_90,N_91)
| ~ convergent_lines(M_90,N_91) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_181]) ).
tff(c_298,plain,
! [L_89] :
( convergent_lines(L_89,'#skF_2')
| unorthogonal_lines(L_89,'#skF_3')
| ~ convergent_lines('#skF_2','#skF_3') ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_42,c_288]) ).
tff(c_306,plain,
! [L_92] :
( convergent_lines(L_92,'#skF_2')
| unorthogonal_lines(L_92,'#skF_3') ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_219,c_298]) ).
tff(c_313,plain,
convergent_lines('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_306,c_44]) ).
tff(c_319,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_46,c_313]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.13/0.14 % Problem : GEO218+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.13/0.15 % 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
% 0.14/0.37 % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.37 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.37 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.37 % DateTime : Fri Aug 4 01:12:30 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 3.46/1.90 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.46/1.91
% 3.46/1.91 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.76/1.94
% 3.76/1.94 Inference rules
% 3.76/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.76/1.94 #Ref : 0
% 3.76/1.94 #Sup : 61
% 3.76/1.94 #Fact : 2
% 3.76/1.94 #Define : 0
% 3.76/1.94 #Split : 1
% 3.76/1.94 #Chain : 0
% 3.76/1.94 #Close : 0
% 3.76/1.94
% 3.76/1.94 Ordering : KBO
% 3.76/1.94
% 3.76/1.94 Simplification rules
% 3.76/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.76/1.94 #Subsume : 6
% 3.76/1.94 #Demod : 9
% 3.76/1.94 #Tautology : 10
% 3.76/1.94 #SimpNegUnit : 2
% 3.76/1.94 #BackRed : 0
% 3.76/1.94
% 3.76/1.94 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.76/1.94 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.76/1.94
% 3.76/1.94 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.76/1.94 ----------------------
% 3.76/1.94 Preprocessing : 0.50
% 3.76/1.94 Parsing : 0.28
% 3.76/1.94 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.76/1.94 Main loop : 0.36
% 3.76/1.94 Inferencing : 0.15
% 3.76/1.94 Reduction : 0.08
% 3.76/1.94 Demodulation : 0.05
% 3.76/1.94 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 3.76/1.94 Subsumption : 0.09
% 3.76/1.94 Abstraction : 0.01
% 3.76/1.94 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.76/1.94 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.76/1.94 Total : 0.91
% 3.76/1.94 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.76/1.94 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.76/1.94 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.76/1.94 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------