TSTP Solution File: REL003-1 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : REL003-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 : 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 10:54:24 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 3.50s 1.90s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 3.60s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :   14
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   28 (  12 unt;  10 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   24 (  22 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   14 (   8   ~;   6   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Number of types       :    1 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    8 (   5   >;   3   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :   10 (  10 usr;   5 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (;   6   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ meet > join > composition > #nlpp > converse > complement > zero > top > sk2 > sk1 > one

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

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

tff(sk2,type,
    sk2: $i ).

tff(sk1,type,
    sk1: $i ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tff(f_64,axiom,
    ! [A,B] : ( converse(join(A,B)) = join(converse(A),converse(B)) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_82,axiom,
    ( ( join(sk1,sk2) != sk2 )
    | ( join(converse(sk1),converse(sk2)) != converse(sk2) ) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_62,axiom,
    ! [A] : ( converse(converse(A)) = A ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_77,axiom,
    ( ( join(sk1,sk2) = sk2 )
    | ( join(converse(sk1),converse(sk2)) = converse(sk2) ) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_18,plain,
    ! [A_18,B_19] : ( join(converse(A_18),converse(B_19)) = converse(join(A_18,B_19)) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_64]) ).

tff(c_30,plain,
    ( ( join(converse(sk1),converse(sk2)) != converse(sk2) )
    | ( join(sk1,sk2) != sk2 ) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_82]) ).

tff(c_32,plain,
    ( ( converse(join(sk1,sk2)) != converse(sk2) )
    | ( join(sk1,sk2) != sk2 ) ),
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_18,c_30]) ).

tff(c_327,plain,
    join(sk1,sk2) != sk2,
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_32]) ).

tff(c_16,plain,
    ! [A_17] : ( converse(converse(A_17)) = A_17 ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_62]) ).

tff(c_28,plain,
    ( ( join(converse(sk1),converse(sk2)) = converse(sk2) )
    | ( join(sk1,sk2) = sk2 ) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_77]) ).

tff(c_31,plain,
    ( ( converse(join(sk1,sk2)) = converse(sk2) )
    | ( join(sk1,sk2) = sk2 ) ),
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_18,c_28]) ).

tff(c_522,plain,
    converse(join(sk1,sk2)) = converse(sk2),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_327,c_31]) ).

tff(c_538,plain,
    converse(converse(sk2)) = join(sk1,sk2),
    inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_522,c_16]) ).

tff(c_545,plain,
    join(sk1,sk2) = sk2,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_16,c_538]) ).

tff(c_547,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_327,c_545]) ).

tff(c_549,plain,
    join(sk1,sk2) = sk2,
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_32]) ).

tff(c_548,plain,
    converse(join(sk1,sk2)) != converse(sk2),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_32]) ).

tff(c_558,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_549,c_548]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : REL003-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% 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
% 0.16/0.37  % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.37  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.37  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.37  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 15:58:44 EDT 2023
% 0.16/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 3.50/1.90  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.50/1.91  
% 3.50/1.91  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.60/1.93  
% 3.60/1.93  Inference rules
% 3.60/1.93  ----------------------
% 3.60/1.93  #Ref     : 0
% 3.60/1.93  #Sup     : 148
% 3.60/1.93  #Fact    : 0
% 3.60/1.93  #Define  : 0
% 3.60/1.93  #Split   : 1
% 3.60/1.93  #Chain   : 0
% 3.60/1.93  #Close   : 0
% 3.60/1.93  
% 3.60/1.93  Ordering : KBO
% 3.60/1.93  
% 3.60/1.93  Simplification rules
% 3.60/1.93  ----------------------
% 3.60/1.93  #Subsume      : 3
% 3.60/1.93  #Demod        : 49
% 3.60/1.93  #Tautology    : 72
% 3.60/1.93  #SimpNegUnit  : 2
% 3.60/1.93  #BackRed      : 0
% 3.60/1.93  
% 3.60/1.93  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 3.60/1.93  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 3.60/1.93  
% 3.60/1.93  Timing (in seconds)
% 3.60/1.93  ----------------------
% 3.60/1.94  Preprocessing        : 0.45
% 3.60/1.94  Parsing              : 0.23
% 3.60/1.94  CNF conversion       : 0.03
% 3.60/1.94  Main loop            : 0.41
% 3.60/1.94  Inferencing          : 0.14
% 3.60/1.94  Reduction            : 0.15
% 3.60/1.94  Demodulation         : 0.12
% 3.60/1.94  BG Simplification    : 0.02
% 3.60/1.94  Subsumption          : 0.07
% 3.60/1.94  Abstraction          : 0.02
% 3.60/1.94  MUC search           : 0.00
% 3.60/1.94  Cooper               : 0.00
% 3.60/1.94  Total                : 0.90
% 3.60/1.94  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 3.60/1.94  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 3.60/1.94  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 3.60/1.94  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------