TSTP Solution File: NUM850+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : NUM850+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n004.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 : Mon Jul 18 09:37:08 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 1.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 48 ( 28 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 46 ( 23 ~; 21 |; 1 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 41 ( 5 sgn 20 !; 5 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof('qe(conseq_conjunct1(conseq(302)))',conjecture,
? [X1] : vd470 = vplus(vd471,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','qe(conseq_conjunct1(conseq(302)))') ).
fof('def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)',axiom,
! [X63,X64] :
( less(X64,X63)
<=> ? [X65] : X63 = vplus(X64,X65) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)') ).
fof('ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 0)',axiom,
! [X69,X70] :
( X69 = X70
| ? [X71] : X69 = vplus(X70,X71)
| ? [X72] : X70 = vplus(X69,X72) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 0)') ).
fof('ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 2)',axiom,
! [X61,X62] :
( ~ greater(X61,X62)
| ~ less(X61,X62) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 2)') ).
fof('ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 3)',axiom,
! [X61,X62] :
( X61 != X62
| ~ greater(X61,X62) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 3)') ).
fof('holds(antec(302), 472, 0)',axiom,
greater(vd470,vd471),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in','holds(antec(302), 472, 0)') ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] : vd470 = vplus(vd471,X1),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['qe(conseq_conjunct1(conseq(302)))']) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X66,X67,X66,X67,X69] :
( ( ~ less(X67,X66)
| X66 = vplus(X67,esk4_2(X66,X67)) )
& ( X66 != vplus(X67,X69)
| less(X67,X66) ) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],['def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1)'])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X2] : vd470 != vplus(vd471,X2),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X73,X74] :
( X73 = X74
| X73 = vplus(X74,esk1_2(X73,X74))
| X74 = vplus(X73,esk2_2(X73,X74)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],['ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 0)'])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( less(X1,X2)
| X2 != vplus(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
vd470 != vplus(vd471,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( X1 = vplus(X2,esk2_2(X2,X1))
| X2 = vplus(X1,esk1_2(X2,X1))
| X2 = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X63,X64] :
( ~ greater(X63,X64)
| ~ less(X63,X64) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],['ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 2)'])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
less(X1,vplus(X1,X2)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( vplus(X1,esk1_2(vd471,X1)) = vd471
| X1 = vd471
| X1 != vd470 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ less(X1,X2)
| ~ greater(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( X1 = vd471
| less(X1,vd471)
| X1 != vd470 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
fof(c_0_18,plain,
! [X63,X64] :
( X63 != X64
| ~ greater(X63,X64) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],['ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 3)'])]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( X1 = vd471
| X1 != vd470
| ~ greater(X1,vd471) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
greater(vd470,vd471),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],['holds(antec(302), 472, 0)']) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ greater(X1,X2)
| X1 != X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
vd471 = vd470,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
~ greater(X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_22]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : NUM850+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jul 5 13:06:08 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.24/1.42 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.24/1.42 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.24/1.42 # Preprocessing time : 0.016 s
% 0.24/1.42
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof found!
% 0.24/1.42 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/1.42 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object total steps : 25
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object clause steps : 13
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object formula steps : 12
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object conjectures : 8
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object clause conjectures : 5
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object initial formulas used : 6
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object generating inferences : 5
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.24/1.42 # Parsed axioms : 52
% 0.24/1.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 25
% 0.24/1.42 # Initial clauses : 29
% 0.24/1.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 28
% 0.24/1.42 # Processed clauses : 51
% 0.24/1.42 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.24/1.42 # ...subsumed : 5
% 0.24/1.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 44
% 0.24/1.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 13
% 0.24/1.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.24/1.42 # Generated clauses : 267
% 0.24/1.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 239
% 0.24/1.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Paramodulations : 248
% 0.24/1.42 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Equation resolutions : 19
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 31
% 0.24/1.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.24/1.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.24/1.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 19
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 183
% 0.24/1.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 423
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.24/1.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 34
% 0.24/1.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 33
% 0.24/1.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.24/1.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 20
% 0.24/1.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.24/1.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 3259
% 0.24/1.42
% 0.24/1.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/1.42 # User time : 0.019 s
% 0.24/1.42 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/1.42 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/1.42 # Maximum resident set size: 3132 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------