TSTP Solution File: SEU223+2 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : SEU223+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n020.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 08:39:45 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 8.45s 2.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 8.45s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 26 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 20 RR)
% Number of literals : 59 ( 15 equ; 35 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_439,lemma,
( in(X1,X2)
| ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_439) ).
cnf(i_0_425,negated_conjecture,
in(esk81_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_425) ).
cnf(i_0_427,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk82_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_427) ).
cnf(i_0_343,lemma,
( apply(X1,X2) = X2
| X1 != identity_relation(X3)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ in(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_343) ).
cnf(i_0_325,lemma,
( apply(relation_composition(X1,X2),X3) = apply(X2,apply(X1,X3))
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ function(X2)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ in(X3,relation_dom(relation_composition(X1,X2))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_325) ).
cnf(i_0_449,lemma,
( relation_composition(identity_relation(X1),X2) = relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)
| ~ relation(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_449) ).
cnf(i_0_207,plain,
relation(identity_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_207) ).
cnf(i_0_206,plain,
function(identity_relation(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_206) ).
cnf(i_0_426,negated_conjecture,
function(esk82_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_426) ).
cnf(i_0_424,negated_conjecture,
apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0),esk81_0) != apply(esk82_0,esk81_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-ad7htaea/lgb.p',i_0_424) ).
cnf(c_0_460,lemma,
( in(X1,X2)
| ~ relation(X3)
| ~ in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2))) ),
i_0_439 ).
cnf(c_0_461,negated_conjecture,
in(esk81_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0))),
i_0_425 ).
cnf(c_0_462,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk82_0),
i_0_427 ).
cnf(c_0_463,lemma,
( apply(X1,X2) = X2
| X1 != identity_relation(X3)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ in(X2,X3) ),
i_0_343 ).
cnf(c_0_464,negated_conjecture,
in(esk81_0,esk80_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_460,c_0_461]),c_0_462])]) ).
cnf(c_0_465,lemma,
( apply(relation_composition(X1,X2),X3) = apply(X2,apply(X1,X3))
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ function(X2)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ relation(X2)
| ~ in(X3,relation_dom(relation_composition(X1,X2))) ),
i_0_325 ).
cnf(c_0_466,lemma,
( relation_composition(identity_relation(X1),X2) = relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)
| ~ relation(X2) ),
i_0_449 ).
cnf(c_0_467,plain,
relation(identity_relation(X1)),
i_0_207 ).
cnf(c_0_468,plain,
function(identity_relation(X1)),
i_0_206 ).
cnf(c_0_469,lemma,
( apply(X1,esk81_0) = esk81_0
| X1 != identity_relation(esk80_0)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ function(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_463,c_0_464]) ).
cnf(c_0_470,lemma,
( apply(X1,apply(identity_relation(X2),X3)) = apply(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2),X3)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ in(X3,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2))) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_465,c_0_466]),c_0_467]),c_0_468])]) ).
cnf(c_0_471,lemma,
apply(identity_relation(esk80_0),esk81_0) = esk81_0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_469]),c_0_467]),c_0_468])]) ).
cnf(c_0_472,lemma,
( apply(relation_dom_restriction(X1,esk80_0),esk81_0) = apply(X1,esk81_0)
| ~ relation(X1)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ in(esk81_0,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,esk80_0))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_470,c_0_471]) ).
cnf(c_0_473,negated_conjecture,
function(esk82_0),
i_0_426 ).
cnf(c_0_474,negated_conjecture,
apply(relation_dom_restriction(esk82_0,esk80_0),esk81_0) != apply(esk82_0,esk81_0),
i_0_424 ).
cnf(c_0_475,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_472,c_0_461]),c_0_462]),c_0_473])]),c_0_474]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SEU223+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 07:39:05 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.46 # ENIGMATIC: Selected complete mode:
% 8.45/2.56 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by autoschedule-lgb:
% 8.45/2.56 # No SInE strategy applied
% 8.45/2.56 # Trying AutoSched0 for 150 seconds
% 8.45/2.56 # AutoSched0-Mode selected heuristic G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y
% 8.45/2.56 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 8.45/2.56 #
% 8.45/2.56 # Preprocessing time : 0.025 s
% 8.45/2.56
% 8.45/2.56 # Proof found!
% 8.45/2.56 # SZS status Theorem
% 8.45/2.56 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 8.45/2.56 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 8.45/2.56
% 8.45/2.56 # -------------------------------------------------
% 8.45/2.56 # User time : 0.036 s
% 8.45/2.56 # System time : 0.007 s
% 8.45/2.56 # Total time : 0.043 s
% 8.45/2.56 # Maximum resident set size: 7120 pages
% 8.45/2.56
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------