TSTP Solution File: SET631+3 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SET631+3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 : n013.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 10:56:45 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.96s 1.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.96s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 11
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 24 ( 5 unt; 7 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 29 ( 13 ~; 10 |; 2 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 8 ( 4 >; 4 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 (; 31 !; 1 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ member > intersect > difference > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_3 > #skF_4 > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(intersect,type,
intersect: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(member,type,
member: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': $i ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': $i ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': $i ).
tff(difference,type,
difference: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f_53,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [B,C,D] :
( intersect(B,difference(C,D))
=> intersect(B,C) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_th113) ).
tff(f_42,axiom,
! [B,C] :
( intersect(B,C)
<=> ? [D] :
( member(D,B)
& member(D,C) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',intersect_defn) ).
tff(f_34,axiom,
! [B,C,D] :
( member(D,difference(B,C))
<=> ( member(D,B)
& ~ member(D,C) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',difference_defn) ).
tff(f_47,axiom,
! [B,C] :
( intersect(B,C)
=> intersect(C,B) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',symmetry_of_intersect) ).
tff(c_16,plain,
~ intersect('#skF_2','#skF_3'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_53]) ).
tff(c_18,plain,
intersect('#skF_2',difference('#skF_3','#skF_4')),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_53]) ).
tff(c_29,plain,
! [B_19,C_20] :
( member('#skF_1'(B_19,C_20),C_20)
| ~ intersect(B_19,C_20) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_42]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [D_3,B_1,C_2] :
( member(D_3,B_1)
| ~ member(D_3,difference(B_1,C_2)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).
tff(c_121,plain,
! [B_37,B_38,C_39] :
( member('#skF_1'(B_37,difference(B_38,C_39)),B_38)
| ~ intersect(B_37,difference(B_38,C_39)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_29,c_6]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
! [B_4,C_5] :
( member('#skF_1'(B_4,C_5),B_4)
| ~ intersect(B_4,C_5) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_42]) ).
tff(c_51,plain,
! [B_23,C_24,D_25] :
( intersect(B_23,C_24)
| ~ member(D_25,C_24)
| ~ member(D_25,B_23) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_42]) ).
tff(c_56,plain,
! [B_23,B_4,C_5] :
( intersect(B_23,B_4)
| ~ member('#skF_1'(B_4,C_5),B_23)
| ~ intersect(B_4,C_5) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_12,c_51]) ).
tff(c_160,plain,
! [B_42,B_43,C_44] :
( intersect(B_42,B_43)
| ~ intersect(B_43,difference(B_42,C_44)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_121,c_56]) ).
tff(c_168,plain,
intersect('#skF_3','#skF_2'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_18,c_160]) ).
tff(c_14,plain,
! [C_10,B_9] :
( intersect(C_10,B_9)
| ~ intersect(B_9,C_10) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_47]) ).
tff(c_174,plain,
intersect('#skF_2','#skF_3'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_168,c_14]) ).
tff(c_181,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_16,c_174]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14 % Problem : SET631+3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.2.0.
% 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
% 0.15/0.36 % Computer : n013.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 16:12:03 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 2.96/1.72 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.96/1.73
% 2.96/1.73 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.96/1.76
% 2.96/1.76 Inference rules
% 2.96/1.76 ----------------------
% 2.96/1.76 #Ref : 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Sup : 37
% 2.96/1.76 #Fact : 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Define : 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Split : 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Chain : 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Close : 0
% 2.96/1.76
% 2.96/1.76 Ordering : KBO
% 2.96/1.76
% 2.96/1.76 Simplification rules
% 2.96/1.76 ----------------------
% 2.96/1.76 #Subsume : 1
% 2.96/1.76 #Demod : 10
% 2.96/1.76 #Tautology : 13
% 2.96/1.76 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 2.96/1.76 #BackRed : 0
% 2.96/1.76
% 2.96/1.76 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.96/1.76 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.96/1.76
% 2.96/1.76 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.96/1.76 ----------------------
% 2.96/1.76 Preprocessing : 0.42
% 2.96/1.76 Parsing : 0.23
% 2.96/1.76 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 2.96/1.76 Main loop : 0.27
% 2.96/1.76 Inferencing : 0.12
% 2.96/1.76 Reduction : 0.06
% 2.96/1.76 Demodulation : 0.04
% 2.96/1.76 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 2.96/1.76 Subsumption : 0.06
% 2.96/1.76 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.96/1.77 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.96/1.77 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.96/1.77 Total : 0.74
% 2.96/1.77 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.96/1.77 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.96/1.77 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.96/1.77 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------