TSTP Solution File: SEU137+2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SEU137+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : n017.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 10:57:43 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 4.08s 2.15s
% Output : CNFRefutation 4.08s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 27
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 34 ( 7 unt; 24 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 13 ( 8 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 7 ( 4 ~; 1 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 42 ( 19 >; 23 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 20 ( 20 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 (; 10 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ subset > in > disjoint > empty > set_union2 > set_intersection2 > set_difference > #nlpp > empty_set > #skF_11 > #skF_6 > #skF_15 > #skF_1 > #skF_13 > #skF_10 > #skF_12 > #skF_14 > #skF_5 > #skF_2 > #skF_9 > #skF_7 > #skF_3 > #skF_8 > #skF_16 > #skF_4
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff('#skF_11',type,
'#skF_11': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(set_difference,type,
set_difference: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_6',type,
'#skF_6': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_15',type,
'#skF_15': $i ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i > $i ).
tff('#skF_13',type,
'#skF_13': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_10',type,
'#skF_10': $i ).
tff('#skF_12',type,
'#skF_12': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(in,type,
in: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_14',type,
'#skF_14': $i ).
tff(subset,type,
subset: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_5',type,
'#skF_5': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(set_intersection2,type,
set_intersection2: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(empty,type,
empty: $i > $o ).
tff(disjoint,type,
disjoint: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_9',type,
'#skF_9': $i ).
tff('#skF_7',type,
'#skF_7': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(empty_set,type,
empty_set: $i ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(set_union2,type,
set_union2: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_8',type,
'#skF_8': ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_16',type,
'#skF_16': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_4',type,
'#skF_4': ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f_170,lemma,
! [A,B] : ( set_union2(A,set_difference(B,A)) = set_union2(A,B) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t39_xboole_1) ).
tff(f_201,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [A,B] :
( subset(A,B)
=> ( B = set_union2(A,set_difference(B,A)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t45_xboole_1) ).
tff(f_123,lemma,
! [A,B] :
( subset(A,B)
=> ( set_union2(A,B) = B ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t12_xboole_1) ).
tff(c_146,plain,
! [A_80,B_81] : ( set_union2(A_80,set_difference(B_81,A_80)) = set_union2(A_80,B_81) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_170]) ).
tff(c_160,plain,
set_union2('#skF_14',set_difference('#skF_15','#skF_14')) != '#skF_15',
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_201]) ).
tff(c_179,plain,
set_union2('#skF_14','#skF_15') != '#skF_15',
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_146,c_160]) ).
tff(c_162,plain,
subset('#skF_14','#skF_15'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_201]) ).
tff(c_897,plain,
! [A_165,B_166] :
( ( set_union2(A_165,B_166) = B_166 )
| ~ subset(A_165,B_166) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_123]) ).
tff(c_924,plain,
set_union2('#skF_14','#skF_15') = '#skF_15',
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_162,c_897]) ).
tff(c_938,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_179,c_924]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SEU137+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % 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
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 11:36:21 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 4.08/2.15 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.08/2.15
% 4.08/2.15 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 4.08/2.18
% 4.08/2.18 Inference rules
% 4.08/2.18 ----------------------
% 4.08/2.18 #Ref : 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Sup : 170
% 4.08/2.18 #Fact : 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Define : 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Split : 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Chain : 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Close : 0
% 4.08/2.18
% 4.08/2.18 Ordering : KBO
% 4.08/2.18
% 4.08/2.18 Simplification rules
% 4.08/2.18 ----------------------
% 4.08/2.18 #Subsume : 8
% 4.08/2.18 #Demod : 80
% 4.08/2.18 #Tautology : 151
% 4.08/2.18 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 4.08/2.18 #BackRed : 8
% 4.08/2.18
% 4.08/2.18 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 4.08/2.18 #Strategies tried : 1
% 4.08/2.18
% 4.08/2.18 Timing (in seconds)
% 4.08/2.18 ----------------------
% 4.42/2.18 Preprocessing : 0.64
% 4.42/2.18 Parsing : 0.32
% 4.42/2.18 CNF conversion : 0.06
% 4.42/2.18 Main loop : 0.43
% 4.42/2.18 Inferencing : 0.13
% 4.42/2.18 Reduction : 0.16
% 4.42/2.18 Demodulation : 0.12
% 4.42/2.18 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 4.42/2.18 Subsumption : 0.09
% 4.42/2.18 Abstraction : 0.02
% 4.42/2.18 MUC search : 0.00
% 4.42/2.18 Cooper : 0.00
% 4.42/2.18 Total : 1.11
% 4.42/2.18 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 4.42/2.18 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 4.42/2.18 Index Matching : 0.00
% 4.42/2.18 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------