TSTP Solution File: SEU010+1 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : SEU010+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n022.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 : Tue Jul 19 09:16:23 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s 1.41s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   18 (   6 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   42 (  17 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   40 (  16   ~;  12   |;   6   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   6  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    6 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (   1 sgn  13   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t42_funct_1,conjecture,
    ! [X1] :
      ( ( relation(X1)
        & function(X1) )
     => ( relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1
        & relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t42_funct_1) ).

fof(t79_relat_1,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( relation(X2)
     => ( subset(relation_rng(X2),X1)
       => relation_composition(X2,identity_relation(X1)) = X2 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t79_relat_1) ).

fof(reflexivity_r1_tarski,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',reflexivity_r1_tarski) ).

fof(t77_relat_1,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ( relation(X2)
     => ( subset(relation_dom(X2),X1)
       => relation_composition(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2 ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t77_relat_1) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1] :
        ( ( relation(X1)
          & function(X1) )
       => ( relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1
          & relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1 ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t42_funct_1]) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X3,X4] :
      ( ~ relation(X4)
      | ~ subset(relation_rng(X4),X3)
      | relation_composition(X4,identity_relation(X3)) = X4 ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t79_relat_1])]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X3] : subset(X3,X3),
    inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).

fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( relation(esk1_0)
    & function(esk1_0)
    & ( relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(esk1_0)),esk1_0) != esk1_0
      | relation_composition(esk1_0,identity_relation(relation_rng(esk1_0))) != esk1_0 ) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(X2)) = X1
    | ~ subset(relation_rng(X1),X2)
    | ~ relation(X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    subset(X1,X1),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

fof(c_0_10,plain,
    ! [X3,X4] :
      ( ~ relation(X4)
      | ~ subset(relation_dom(X4),X3)
      | relation_composition(identity_relation(X3),X4) = X4 ),
    inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t77_relat_1])]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ( relation_composition(esk1_0,identity_relation(relation_rng(esk1_0))) != esk1_0
    | relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(esk1_0)),esk1_0) != esk1_0 ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( relation_composition(X1,identity_relation(relation_rng(X1))) = X1
    | ~ relation(X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    relation(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( relation_composition(identity_relation(X1),X2) = X2
    | ~ subset(relation_dom(X2),X1)
    | ~ relation(X2) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
    relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(esk1_0)),esk1_0) != esk1_0,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    ( relation_composition(identity_relation(relation_dom(X1)),X1) = X1
    | ~ relation(X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_13])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem  : SEU010+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.03/0.13  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.34  % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.12/0.34  % DateTime : Mon Jun 20 00:18:46 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.22/1.41  # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.41  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.41  # Preprocessing time       : 0.016 s
% 0.22/1.41  
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.41  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.41  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object total steps             : 18
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object clause steps            : 9
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object formula steps           : 9
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object conjectures             : 7
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 4
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 5
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 4
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object generating inferences   : 4
% 0.22/1.41  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 4
% 0.22/1.41  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.41  # Parsed axioms                        : 38
% 0.22/1.41  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 5
% 0.22/1.41  # Initial clauses                      : 47
% 0.22/1.41  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 47
% 0.22/1.41  # Processed clauses                    : 71
% 0.22/1.41  # ...of these trivial                  : 1
% 0.22/1.41  # ...subsumed                          : 6
% 0.22/1.41  # ...remaining for further processing  : 64
% 0.22/1.41  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Backward-rewritten                   : 7
% 0.22/1.41  # Generated clauses                    : 93
% 0.22/1.41  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 69
% 0.22/1.41  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 3
% 0.22/1.41  # Paramodulations                      : 93
% 0.22/1.41  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Current number of processed clauses  : 57
% 0.22/1.41  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 15
% 0.22/1.41  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.41  #    Negative unit clauses             : 4
% 0.22/1.41  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 38
% 0.22/1.41  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.22/1.41  # ...number of literals in the above   : 93
% 0.22/1.41  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Current number of archived clauses   : 7
% 0.22/1.41  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 280
% 0.22/1.41  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 248
% 0.22/1.41  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 9
% 0.22/1.41  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 75
% 0.22/1.41  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 7
% 0.22/1.41  # BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 0.22/1.41  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/1.41  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 3210
% 0.22/1.41  
% 0.22/1.41  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.41  # User time                : 0.018 s
% 0.22/1.41  # System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.22/1.41  # Total time               : 0.020 s
% 0.22/1.41  # Maximum resident set size: 3012 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------