TSTP Solution File: LCL435-2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : LCL435-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 : 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 10:48:06 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 2.22s 1.55s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :   12
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   17 (   6 unt;   9 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   10 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    7 (   5   ~;   2   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    9 (   4   >;   5   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   5 con; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (;  16   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_in > c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62 > c_PropLog_Othms > #nlpp > tc_PropLog_Opl > v_q > v_pa > v_p > v_H > t_a

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62,type,
    c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(v_q,type,
    v_q: $i ).

tff(t_a,type,
    t_a: $i ).

tff(c_PropLog_Othms,type,
    c_PropLog_Othms: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(c_in,type,
    c_in: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(v_pa,type,
    v_pa: $i ).

tff(v_H,type,
    v_H: $i ).

tff(tc_PropLog_Opl,type,
    tc_PropLog_Opl: $i > $i ).

tff(v_p,type,
    v_p: $i ).

tff(f_29,axiom,
    ! [V_p,V_q,T_a,V_H] : c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_p,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_q,V_p,T_a),T_a),c_PropLog_Othms(V_H,T_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_34,axiom,
    ! [V_q,V_H,T_a,V_p] :
      ( ~ c_in(V_q,c_PropLog_Othms(V_H,T_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a))
      | c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_p,V_q,T_a),c_PropLog_Othms(V_H,T_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a)) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_27,axiom,
    ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_p,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_pa,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_q,v_pa,t_a),t_a),t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(v_H,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_4,plain,
    ! [V_p_1,V_q_2,T_a_3,V_H_4] : c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_p_1,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_q_2,V_p_1,T_a_3),T_a_3),c_PropLog_Othms(V_H_4,T_a_3),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a_3)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_29]) ).

tff(c_8,plain,
    ! [V_p_13,V_q_14,T_a_15,V_H_16] :
      ( c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(V_p_13,V_q_14,T_a_15),c_PropLog_Othms(V_H_16,T_a_15),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a_15))
      | ~ c_in(V_q_14,c_PropLog_Othms(V_H_16,T_a_15),tc_PropLog_Opl(T_a_15)) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_p,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_pa,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_q,v_pa,t_a),t_a),t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(v_H,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).

tff(c_11,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_pa,c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(v_q,v_pa,t_a),t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(v_H,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_8,c_2]) ).

tff(c_15,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_4,c_11]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : LCL435-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % 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
% 0.15/0.36  % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.37  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 14:29:14 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.22/1.55  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.22/1.55  
% 2.22/1.55  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.22/1.59  
% 2.22/1.59  Inference rules
% 2.22/1.59  ----------------------
% 2.22/1.59  #Ref     : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Sup     : 1
% 2.22/1.59  #Fact    : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Define  : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Split   : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Chain   : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Close   : 0
% 2.22/1.59  
% 2.22/1.59  Ordering : KBO
% 2.22/1.59  
% 2.22/1.59  Simplification rules
% 2.22/1.59  ----------------------
% 2.22/1.59  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Demod        : 1
% 2.22/1.59  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #SimpNegUnit  : 0
% 2.22/1.59  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.22/1.59  
% 2.22/1.59  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.22/1.59  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.22/1.59  
% 2.22/1.59  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.22/1.59  ----------------------
% 2.22/1.59  Preprocessing        : 0.39
% 2.22/1.59  Parsing              : 0.21
% 2.22/1.59  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.22/1.59  Main loop            : 0.12
% 2.22/1.59  Inferencing          : 0.06
% 2.22/1.59  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.22/1.59  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.22/1.59  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.22/1.59  Subsumption          : 0.02
% 2.22/1.59  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  Total                : 0.56
% 2.22/1.59  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.22/1.59  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------