TSTP Solution File: MGT041+2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : MGT041+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s

% Computer : n019.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 10:49:41 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 2.68s 1.72s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.68s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :   15
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   32 (   9 unt;  10 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   51 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   53 (  24   ~;  17   |;  10   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   11 (   6   >;   5   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    7 (   6 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   4 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (;  16   !;   4   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ number_of_routines > organisation_at_time > has_elaborated_routines > founding_time > first_mover > efficient_producer > #nlpp > low > high > #skF_2 > #skF_1

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(high,type,
    high: $i ).

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

tff(efficient_producer,type,
    efficient_producer: $i > $o ).

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

tff('#skF_2',type,
    '#skF_2': $i ).

tff('#skF_1',type,
    '#skF_1': $i ).

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

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

tff(first_mover,type,
    first_mover: $i > $o ).

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

tff(f_64,hypothesis,
    ? [X,T] :
      ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
      & founding_time(X,T)
      & number_of_routines(X,T,high)
      & ~ has_elaborated_routines(X,T) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a16) ).

tff(f_75,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X,T] :
        ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
        & ~ first_mover(X)
        & ~ efficient_producer(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_t10) ).

tff(f_53,hypothesis,
    ! [X,T] :
      ( ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
        & first_mover(X)
        & founding_time(X,T) )
     => number_of_routines(X,T,low) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a15) ).

tff(f_33,axiom,
    ! [X,T] :
      ~ ( number_of_routines(X,T,low)
        & number_of_routines(X,T,high) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mp_not_high_and_low) ).

tff(f_43,hypothesis,
    ! [X,T] :
      ( ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
        & efficient_producer(X)
        & founding_time(X,T) )
     => has_elaborated_routines(X,T) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a14) ).

tff(c_8,plain,
    ~ has_elaborated_routines('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_64]) ).

tff(c_14,plain,
    organisation_at_time('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_64]) ).

tff(c_17,plain,
    ! [X_9,T_10] :
      ( efficient_producer(X_9)
      | first_mover(X_9)
      | ~ organisation_at_time(X_9,T_10) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_75]) ).

tff(c_21,plain,
    ( efficient_producer('#skF_1')
    | first_mover('#skF_1') ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_14,c_17]) ).

tff(c_23,plain,
    first_mover('#skF_1'),
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_21]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    founding_time('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_64]) ).

tff(c_10,plain,
    number_of_routines('#skF_1','#skF_2',high),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_64]) ).

tff(c_32,plain,
    ! [X_15,T_16] :
      ( number_of_routines(X_15,T_16,low)
      | ~ founding_time(X_15,T_16)
      | ~ first_mover(X_15)
      | ~ organisation_at_time(X_15,T_16) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_53]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ! [X_1,T_2] :
      ( ~ number_of_routines(X_1,T_2,high)
      | ~ number_of_routines(X_1,T_2,low) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_33]) ).

tff(c_37,plain,
    ! [X_17,T_18] :
      ( ~ number_of_routines(X_17,T_18,high)
      | ~ founding_time(X_17,T_18)
      | ~ first_mover(X_17)
      | ~ organisation_at_time(X_17,T_18) ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_32,c_2]) ).

tff(c_40,plain,
    ( ~ founding_time('#skF_1','#skF_2')
    | ~ first_mover('#skF_1')
    | ~ organisation_at_time('#skF_1','#skF_2') ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_10,c_37]) ).

tff(c_44,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_14,c_23,c_12,c_40]) ).

tff(c_45,plain,
    efficient_producer('#skF_1'),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_21]) ).

tff(c_47,plain,
    ! [X_19,T_20] :
      ( has_elaborated_routines(X_19,T_20)
      | ~ founding_time(X_19,T_20)
      | ~ efficient_producer(X_19)
      | ~ organisation_at_time(X_19,T_20) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_43]) ).

tff(c_50,plain,
    ( has_elaborated_routines('#skF_1','#skF_2')
    | ~ founding_time('#skF_1','#skF_2')
    | ~ efficient_producer('#skF_1') ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_14,c_47]) ).

tff(c_53,plain,
    has_elaborated_routines('#skF_1','#skF_2'),
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_45,c_12,c_50]) ).

tff(c_55,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_8,c_53]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : MGT041+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.15/0.36  % Computer : n019.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
% 0.15/0.36  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 20:32:01 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.68/1.72  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.68/1.72  
% 2.68/1.72  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.68/1.75  
% 2.68/1.75  Inference rules
% 2.68/1.75  ----------------------
% 2.68/1.75  #Ref     : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Sup     : 5
% 2.68/1.75  #Fact    : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Define  : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Split   : 1
% 2.68/1.75  #Chain   : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Close   : 0
% 2.68/1.75  
% 2.68/1.75  Ordering : KBO
% 2.68/1.75  
% 2.68/1.75  Simplification rules
% 2.68/1.75  ----------------------
% 2.68/1.75  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Demod        : 6
% 2.68/1.75  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.68/1.75  #SimpNegUnit  : 2
% 2.68/1.75  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.68/1.75  
% 2.68/1.75  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.68/1.75  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.68/1.75  
% 2.68/1.75  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.68/1.75  ----------------------
% 2.68/1.76  Preprocessing        : 0.43
% 2.68/1.76  Parsing              : 0.24
% 2.68/1.76  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.68/1.76  Main loop            : 0.20
% 2.68/1.76  Inferencing          : 0.09
% 2.68/1.76  Reduction            : 0.04
% 2.68/1.76  Demodulation         : 0.03
% 2.68/1.76  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.68/1.76  Subsumption          : 0.03
% 2.68/1.76  Abstraction          : 0.01
% 2.68/1.76  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.68/1.76  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.68/1.76  Total                : 0.67
% 2.68/1.76  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.68/1.76  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.68/1.76  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.68/1.76  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------