TSTP Solution File: SEU247+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SEU247+1 : 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 : 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 : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 10:58:10 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.88s 1.70s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.88s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 11
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 5 unt; 8 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 17 ( 8 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 14 ( 8 ~; 3 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 11 ( 6 >; 5 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 (; 12 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ relation > set_intersection2 > relation_rng_restriction > relation_restriction > relation_dom_restriction > cartesian_product2 > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(relation,type,
relation: $i > $o ).
tff(relation_rng_restriction,type,
relation_rng_restriction: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': $i ).
tff(set_intersection2,type,
set_intersection2: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i ).
tff(relation_dom_restriction,type,
relation_dom_restriction: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(relation_restriction,type,
relation_restriction: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(cartesian_product2,type,
cartesian_product2: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f_61,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [A,B] :
( relation(B)
=> ( relation_restriction(B,A) = relation_rng_restriction(A,relation_dom_restriction(B,A)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t18_wellord1) ).
tff(f_56,axiom,
! [A,B] :
( relation(B)
=> ( relation_restriction(B,A) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(A,B),A) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t17_wellord1) ).
tff(f_52,axiom,
! [A,B,C] :
( relation(C)
=> ( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(A,C),B) = relation_rng_restriction(A,relation_dom_restriction(C,B)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t140_relat_1) ).
tff(c_24,plain,
relation('#skF_2'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_61]) ).
tff(c_20,plain,
! [A_17,B_18] :
( ( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(A_17,B_18),A_17) = relation_restriction(B_18,A_17) )
| ~ relation(B_18) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_56]) ).
tff(c_113,plain,
! [A_32,C_33,B_34] :
( ( relation_rng_restriction(A_32,relation_dom_restriction(C_33,B_34)) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(A_32,C_33),B_34) )
| ~ relation(C_33) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_52]) ).
tff(c_22,plain,
relation_rng_restriction('#skF_1',relation_dom_restriction('#skF_2','#skF_1')) != relation_restriction('#skF_2','#skF_1'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_61]) ).
tff(c_122,plain,
( ( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction('#skF_1','#skF_2'),'#skF_1') != relation_restriction('#skF_2','#skF_1') )
| ~ relation('#skF_2') ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_113,c_22]) ).
tff(c_134,plain,
relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction('#skF_1','#skF_2'),'#skF_1') != relation_restriction('#skF_2','#skF_1'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_24,c_122]) ).
tff(c_138,plain,
~ relation('#skF_2'),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_20,c_134]) ).
tff(c_142,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_24,c_138]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SEU247+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % 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
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 11:51:37 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 2.88/1.70 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.88/1.70
% 2.88/1.70 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.88/1.72
% 2.88/1.72 Inference rules
% 2.88/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.88/1.72 #Ref : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Sup : 28
% 2.88/1.72 #Fact : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Define : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Split : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Chain : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Close : 0
% 2.88/1.72
% 2.88/1.72 Ordering : KBO
% 2.88/1.72
% 2.88/1.72 Simplification rules
% 2.88/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.88/1.72 #Subsume : 1
% 2.88/1.72 #Demod : 2
% 2.88/1.72 #Tautology : 18
% 2.88/1.72 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.88/1.72 #BackRed : 0
% 2.88/1.72
% 2.88/1.72 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.88/1.72 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.88/1.72
% 2.88/1.72 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.88/1.72 ----------------------
% 2.88/1.72 Preprocessing : 0.46
% 2.88/1.72 Parsing : 0.25
% 2.88/1.72 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 2.88/1.73 Main loop : 0.20
% 2.88/1.73 Inferencing : 0.09
% 2.88/1.73 Reduction : 0.05
% 2.88/1.73 Demodulation : 0.04
% 2.88/1.73 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.88/1.73 Subsumption : 0.04
% 2.88/1.73 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.88/1.73 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.88/1.73 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.88/1.73 Total : 0.70
% 2.88/1.73 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.88/1.73 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.88/1.73 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.88/1.73 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------