TSTP Solution File: LCL230-2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : LCL230-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 : n021.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 10:47:44 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.16s 1.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 7 unt; 3 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 11 ( 6 ~; 5 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 0 ( 0 avg)
% Number of types : 1 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 4 prp; 0-0 aty)
% Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% Number of variables : 0 (; 0 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ #nlpp > r > q > p
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(p,type,
p: $o ).
tff(q,type,
q: $o ).
tff(r,type,
r: $o ).
tff(f_33,axiom,
~ p,
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_36,axiom,
~ r,
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_34,axiom,
q,
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_31,axiom,
( ~ q
| p
| r ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
~ p,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_33]) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
~ r,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
q,
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
( r
| p
| ~ q ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_31]) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
( r
| p ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_6,c_2]) ).
tff(c_11,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_8,c_10]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : LCL230-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 : n021.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 : Thu Aug 3 13:45:51 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 2.16/1.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.16/1.50
% 2.16/1.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.16/1.53
% 2.16/1.53 Inference rules
% 2.16/1.53 ----------------------
% 2.16/1.53 #Ref : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Sup : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Fact : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Define : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Split : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Chain : 0
% 2.16/1.53 #Close : 0
% 2.16/1.53
% 2.16/1.53 Ordering : KBO
% 2.16/1.53
% 2.16/1.53 Simplification rules
% 2.16/1.53 ----------------------
% 2.16/1.53 #Subsume : 3
% 2.16/1.53 #Demod : 1
% 2.16/1.54 #Tautology : 0
% 2.16/1.54 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 2.16/1.54 #BackRed : 0
% 2.16/1.54
% 2.16/1.54 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.16/1.54 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.16/1.54
% 2.16/1.54 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.16/1.54 ----------------------
% 2.16/1.54 Preprocessing : 0.34
% 2.16/1.54 Parsing : 0.17
% 2.16/1.54 CNF conversion : 0.01
% 2.16/1.54 Main loop : 0.05
% 2.16/1.54 Inferencing : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.16/1.54 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.16/1.54 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.16/1.54 Subsumption : 0.02
% 2.16/1.54 Abstraction : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 Total : 0.44
% 2.16/1.54 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.16/1.54 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------