TSTP Solution File: SEU247+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n004.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 09:18:16 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 1.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 8 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn 14 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t18_wellord1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t18_wellord1) ).
fof(t17_wellord1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t17_wellord1) ).
fof(t140_relat_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation(X3)
=> relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X3),X2) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t140_relat_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( relation(X2)
=> relation_restriction(X2,X1) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t18_wellord1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( relation(esk2_0)
& relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0) != relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ relation(X4)
| relation_restriction(X4,X3) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X3,X4),X3) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t17_wellord1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
relation_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0) != relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( relation_restriction(X1,X2) = relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X2,X1),X2)
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_9,lemma,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ relation(X6)
| relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X4,X6),X5) = relation_rng_restriction(X4,relation_dom_restriction(X6,X5)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t140_relat_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,relation_dom_restriction(esk2_0,esk1_0)) != relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(esk1_0,esk2_0),esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
( relation_dom_restriction(relation_rng_restriction(X1,X2),X3) = relation_rng_restriction(X1,relation_dom_restriction(X2,X3))
| ~ relation(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SEU247+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n004.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 : 600
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 22:30:23 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.25/1.44 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.44 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.25/1.44 # Preprocessing time : 0.033 s
% 0.25/1.44
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof found!
% 0.25/1.44 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/1.44 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object total steps : 13
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object clause steps : 6
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.25/1.44 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.25/1.44 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.44 # Parsed axioms : 305
% 0.25/1.44 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 204
% 0.25/1.44 # Initial clauses : 199
% 0.25/1.44 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.25/1.44 # Initial clauses in saturation : 196
% 0.25/1.44 # Processed clauses : 201
% 0.25/1.44 # ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.25/1.44 # ...subsumed : 14
% 0.25/1.44 # ...remaining for further processing : 184
% 0.25/1.44 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 12
% 0.25/1.44 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # Backward-rewritten : 19
% 0.25/1.44 # Generated clauses : 1057
% 0.25/1.44 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 980
% 0.25/1.44 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 10
% 0.25/1.44 # Paramodulations : 1022
% 0.25/1.44 # Factorizations : 8
% 0.25/1.44 # Equation resolutions : 27
% 0.25/1.44 # Current number of processed clauses : 163
% 0.25/1.44 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 18
% 0.25/1.44 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.25/1.44 # Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.25/1.44 # Non-unit-clauses : 138
% 0.25/1.44 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 829
% 0.25/1.44 # ...number of literals in the above : 3966
% 0.25/1.44 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # Current number of archived clauses : 20
% 0.25/1.44 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6508
% 0.25/1.44 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2054
% 0.25/1.44 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.25/1.44 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 39
% 0.25/1.44 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.25/1.44 # BW rewrite match successes : 15
% 0.25/1.44 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.44 # Termbank termtop insertions : 31406
% 0.25/1.44
% 0.25/1.44 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.44 # User time : 0.068 s
% 0.25/1.44 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/1.44 # Total time : 0.070 s
% 0.25/1.44 # Maximum resident set size: 4984 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------