%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SInE---0.4
% Problem  : LCL680+1.001 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : Source/sine.py -e eprover -t %d %s

% Computer : art09.cs.miami.edu
% Model    : i686 i686
% CPU      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory   : 2018MB
% OS       : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Sat Dec 25 20:32:08 EST 2010

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    9
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   11 (   5 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   17 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   21 (  15   ~;   3   |;   3   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    1 (   1 usr;   1 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    5 (   0 sgn   0   !;   5   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(1,conjecture,
    ~ ? [X1] :
        ~ ( ~ p1(X1)
          | p1(X1) ),
    file('/tmp/tmpk6GdUt/sel_LCL680+1.001.p_1',main) ).

fof(2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ? [X1] :
          ~ ( ~ p1(X1)
            | p1(X1) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[1]) ).

fof(3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ~ ? [X1] :
          ~ ( ~ p1(X1)
            | p1(X1) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[2,theory(equality)]) ).

fof(4,negated_conjecture,
    ? [X1] :
      ( p1(X1)
      & ~ p1(X1) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[3]) ).

fof(5,negated_conjecture,
    ? [X2] :
      ( p1(X2)
      & ~ p1(X2) ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[4]) ).

fof(6,negated_conjecture,
    ( p1(esk1_0)
    & ~ p1(esk1_0) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[5]) ).

cnf(7,negated_conjecture,
    ~ p1(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).

cnf(8,negated_conjecture,
    p1(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).

cnf(9,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[7,8,theory(equality)]) ).

cnf(10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[9,theory(equality)]) ).

cnf(11,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    10,
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% % SZS status Started for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/LCL/LCL680+1.001.p
% --creating new selector for []
% -running prover on /tmp/tmpk6GdUt/sel_LCL680+1.001.p_1 with time limit 29
% -prover status Theorem
% Problem LCL680+1.001.p solved in phase 0.
% % SZS status Theorem for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/LCL/LCL680+1.001.p
% % SZS status Ended for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/LCL/LCL680+1.001.p
% Solved 1 out of 1.
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% See solution above
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------