TSTP Solution File: GEO498+1 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : GEO498+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n029.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  : 600s
% DateTime : Sat Jul 16 04:06:02 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.27s 1.45s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (   8 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   17 (  16 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   13 (   7   ~;   4   |;   2   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    9 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (   0 sgn  12   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(aSatz7_8,conjecture,
    ! [X12,X13,X27,X16] :
      ( s(X12,X13) != X27
      | s(X12,X16) != X27
      | X13 = X16 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',aSatz7_8) ).

fof(aSatz7_7,axiom,
    ! [X12,X13] : s(X12,s(X12,X13)) = X13,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',aSatz7_7) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X12,X13,X27,X16] :
        ( s(X12,X13) != X27
        | s(X12,X16) != X27
        | X13 = X16 ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[aSatz7_8]) ).

fof(c_0_3,plain,
    ! [X14,X15] : s(X14,s(X14,X15)) = X15,
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[aSatz7_7]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ( s(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk3_0
    & s(esk1_0,esk4_0) = esk3_0
    & esk2_0 != esk4_0 ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,plain,
    s(X1,s(X1,X2)) = X2,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0,esk4_0) = esk3_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0,esk2_0) = esk3_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0,esk3_0) = esk4_0,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    esk2_0 != esk4_0,
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.14  % Problem  : GEO498+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.0.0.
% 0.08/0.15  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n029.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  : 600
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime : Sat Jun 18 13:21:14 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.27/1.45  # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.27/1.45  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.27/1.45  # Preprocessing time       : 0.030 s
% 0.27/1.45  
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof found!
% 0.27/1.45  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/1.45  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object total steps             : 11
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object clause steps            : 6
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object formula steps           : 5
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object conjectures             : 8
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 5
% 0.27/1.45  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.27/1.46  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 4
% 0.27/1.46  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # Proof object generating inferences   : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.27/1.46  # Parsed axioms                        : 110
% 0.27/1.46  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 53
% 0.27/1.46  # Initial clauses                      : 64
% 0.27/1.46  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 64
% 0.27/1.46  # Processed clauses                    : 66
% 0.27/1.46  # ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 0.27/1.46  # ...subsumed                          : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # ...remaining for further processing  : 62
% 0.27/1.46  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Generated clauses                    : 112
% 0.27/1.46  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 62
% 0.27/1.46  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 1
% 0.27/1.46  # Paramodulations                      : 110
% 0.27/1.46  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Equation resolutions                 : 2
% 0.27/1.46  # Current number of processed clauses  : 60
% 0.27/1.46  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 12
% 0.27/1.46  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/1.46  #    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.27/1.46  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 47
% 0.27/1.46  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 60
% 0.27/1.46  # ...number of literals in the above   : 189
% 0.27/1.46  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1120
% 0.27/1.46  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 761
% 0.27/1.46  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 3
% 0.27/1.46  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 6
% 0.27/1.46  # BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.27/1.46  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 6850
% 0.27/1.46  
% 0.27/1.46  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/1.46  # User time                : 0.030 s
% 0.27/1.46  # System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.27/1.46  # Total time               : 0.034 s
% 0.27/1.46  # Maximum resident set size: 3304 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------