TSTP Solution File: RNG087+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : RNG087+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n026.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 20:26:52 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 1.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 34 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 31 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 20 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 9 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 8 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1,X2] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& xy = sdtpldt0(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__) ).
fof(m__901,hypothesis,
( ? [X1,X2] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xx )
& aElementOf0(xx,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& ? [X1,X2] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xy )
& aElementOf0(xy,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& aElement0(xz) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',m__901) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& xy = sdtpldt0(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ aElementOf0(X3,xI)
| ~ aElementOf0(X4,xJ)
| xy != sdtpldt0(X3,X4) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
( aElementOf0(esk1_0,xI)
& aElementOf0(esk2_0,xJ)
& sdtpldt0(esk1_0,esk2_0) = xx
& aElementOf0(xx,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& aElementOf0(esk3_0,xI)
& aElementOf0(esk4_0,xJ)
& sdtpldt0(esk3_0,esk4_0) = xy
& aElementOf0(xy,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& aElement0(xz) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__901])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( xy != sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
| ~ aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sdtpldt0(esk3_0,esk4_0) = xy,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk4_0,xJ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk3_0,xI),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.11 % Problem : RNG087+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.10/0.11 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.11/0.31 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.31 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.31 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.31 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.31 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.31 % DateTime : Mon May 30 13:43:10 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.31 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/1.39 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.21/1.39 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.21/1.39 # Preprocessing time : 0.021 s
% 0.21/1.39
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof found!
% 0.21/1.39 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/1.39 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object total steps : 10
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object clause steps : 5
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object conjectures : 5
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.21/1.39 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.21/1.39 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.21/1.39 # Parsed axioms : 28
% 0.21/1.39 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 11
% 0.21/1.39 # Initial clauses : 53
% 0.21/1.39 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.21/1.39 # Initial clauses in saturation : 51
% 0.21/1.39 # Processed clauses : 14
% 0.21/1.39 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # ...remaining for further processing : 14
% 0.21/1.39 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Generated clauses : 7
% 0.21/1.39 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 6
% 0.21/1.39 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Paramodulations : 7
% 0.21/1.39 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.21/1.39 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.21/1.39 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.21/1.39 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 43
% 0.21/1.39 # ...number of literals in the above : 151
% 0.21/1.39 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/1.39 # Termbank termtop insertions : 3381
% 0.21/1.39
% 0.21/1.39 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/1.39 # User time : 0.020 s
% 0.21/1.39 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.21/1.39 # Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.21/1.39 # Maximum resident set size: 2828 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------