TSTP Solution File: KLE006+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : KLE006+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n023.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 : Sun Jul 17 01:55:13 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 1.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 44 ( 22 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 45 ( 18 ~; 15 |; 7 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 25 ( 3 sgn 17 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(test_3,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( test(X4)
=> ( c(X4) = X5
<=> complement(X4,X5) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+1.ax',test_3) ).
fof(goals,conjecture,
! [X4] :
( test(X4)
=> one = addition(X4,c(X4)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',goals) ).
fof(test_2,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( complement(X5,X4)
<=> ( multiplication(X4,X5) = zero
& multiplication(X5,X4) = zero
& addition(X4,X5) = one ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+1.ax',test_2) ).
fof(additive_commutativity,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_commutativity) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X6,X7,X7] :
( ( c(X6) != X7
| complement(X6,X7)
| ~ test(X6) )
& ( ~ complement(X6,X7)
| c(X6) = X7
| ~ test(X6) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[test_3])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4] :
( test(X4)
=> one = addition(X4,c(X4)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X6,X7,X6,X7] :
( ( multiplication(X6,X7) = zero
| ~ complement(X7,X6) )
& ( multiplication(X7,X6) = zero
| ~ complement(X7,X6) )
& ( addition(X6,X7) = one
| ~ complement(X7,X6) )
& ( multiplication(X6,X7) != zero
| multiplication(X7,X6) != zero
| addition(X6,X7) != one
| complement(X7,X6) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[test_2])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( complement(X1,X2)
| ~ test(X1)
| c(X1) != X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X3,X4] : addition(X3,X4) = addition(X4,X3),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_commutativity]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( test(esk1_0)
& one != addition(esk1_0,c(esk1_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( addition(X2,X1) = one
| ~ complement(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( complement(X1,c(X1))
| ~ test(X1) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
one != addition(esk1_0,c(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( addition(X1,c(X1)) = one
| ~ test(X1) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
test(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.13 % Problem : KLE006+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n023.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 : 600
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Jun 16 10:49:35 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.25/1.43 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.43 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.25/1.43 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/1.43
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof found!
% 0.25/1.43 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/1.43 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object total steps : 17
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object clause steps : 8
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.43 # Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.25/1.43 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Initial clauses : 22
% 0.25/1.43 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Initial clauses in saturation : 22
% 0.25/1.43 # Processed clauses : 64
% 0.25/1.43 # ...of these trivial : 5
% 0.25/1.43 # ...subsumed : 5
% 0.25/1.43 # ...remaining for further processing : 54
% 0.25/1.43 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # Generated clauses : 324
% 0.25/1.43 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 195
% 0.25/1.43 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Paramodulations : 321
% 0.25/1.43 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of processed clauses : 47
% 0.25/1.43 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.25/1.43 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Non-unit-clauses : 19
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 152
% 0.25/1.43 # ...number of literals in the above : 215
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 27
% 0.25/1.43 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.25/1.43 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.25/1.43 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # BW rewrite match attempts : 29
% 0.25/1.43 # BW rewrite match successes : 24
% 0.25/1.43 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Termbank termtop insertions : 3184
% 0.25/1.43
% 0.25/1.43 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.43 # User time : 0.018 s
% 0.25/1.43 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/1.43 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.25/1.43 # Maximum resident set size: 3080 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------