TSTP Solution File: GEO237+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : GEO237+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 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 : n027.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 10:38:49 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.27s 1.78s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.47s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 23
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 28 ( 4 unt; 20 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 18 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 15 ( 5 ~; 5 |; 2 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 33 ( 16 >; 17 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 13 ( 12 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 (; 17 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ between_on_line > divides_points > before_on_line > unequally_directed_lines > left_convergent_lines > left_apart_point > distinct_points > distinct_lines > convergent_lines > apart_point_and_line > point > line > parallel_through_point > line_connecting > intersection_point > #nlpp > reverse_line > #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(parallel_through_point,type,
parallel_through_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(point,type,
point: $i > $o ).
tff(reverse_line,type,
reverse_line: $i > $i ).
tff(line,type,
line: $i > $o ).
tff(between_on_line,type,
between_on_line: ( $i * $i * $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(left_convergent_lines,type,
left_convergent_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(distinct_lines,type,
distinct_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': $i ).
tff(before_on_line,type,
before_on_line: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(divides_points,type,
divides_points: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(left_apart_point,type,
left_apart_point: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(unequally_directed_lines,type,
unequally_directed_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(f_161,axiom,
! [A,L] :
~ ( left_apart_point(A,L)
| left_apart_point(A,reverse_line(L)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag10) ).
tff(f_73,axiom,
! [A,B,L] :
( divides_points(L,A,B)
<=> ( ( left_apart_point(A,L)
& left_apart_point(B,reverse_line(L)) )
| ( left_apart_point(A,reverse_line(L))
& left_apart_point(B,L) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',div_def) ).
tff(f_286,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [A,B,C,L] :
( apart_point_and_line(C,L)
=> ( divides_points(L,A,B)
=> ( divides_points(L,A,C)
| divides_points(L,B,C) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
tff(c_76,plain,
! [A_34,L_35] : ~ left_apart_point(A_34,L_35),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_161]) ).
tff(c_20,plain,
! [A_5,L_7,B_6] :
( left_apart_point(A_5,L_7)
| left_apart_point(A_5,reverse_line(L_7))
| ~ divides_points(L_7,A_5,B_6) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_73]) ).
tff(c_134,plain,
! [L_7,A_5,B_6] : ~ divides_points(L_7,A_5,B_6),
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_76,c_76,c_20]) ).
tff(c_122,plain,
divides_points('#skF_4','#skF_1','#skF_2'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_286]) ).
tff(c_135,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_134,c_122]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : GEO237+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % 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
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Fri Aug 4 01:10:54 EDT 2023
% 0.21/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 3.27/1.78 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.27/1.79
% 3.27/1.79 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.47/1.82
% 3.47/1.82 Inference rules
% 3.47/1.82 ----------------------
% 3.47/1.82 #Ref : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Sup : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Fact : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Define : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Split : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Chain : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Close : 0
% 3.47/1.82
% 3.47/1.82 Ordering : KBO
% 3.47/1.82
% 3.47/1.82 Simplification rules
% 3.47/1.82 ----------------------
% 3.47/1.82 #Subsume : 61
% 3.47/1.82 #Demod : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Tautology : 0
% 3.47/1.82 #SimpNegUnit : 11
% 3.47/1.82 #BackRed : 0
% 3.47/1.82
% 3.47/1.82 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.47/1.82 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.47/1.82
% 3.47/1.82 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.47/1.82 ----------------------
% 3.47/1.82 Preprocessing : 0.57
% 3.47/1.82 Parsing : 0.31
% 3.47/1.82 CNF conversion : 0.04
% 3.47/1.82 Main loop : 0.14
% 3.47/1.82 Inferencing : 0.00
% 3.47/1.82 Reduction : 0.06
% 3.47/1.82 Demodulation : 0.04
% 3.47/1.82 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 3.47/1.83 Subsumption : 0.06
% 3.47/1.83 Abstraction : 0.01
% 3.47/1.83 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.47/1.83 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.47/1.83 Total : 0.76
% 3.47/1.83 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.47/1.83 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.47/1.83 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.47/1.83 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------