TSTP Solution File: SEU928^5 by Vampire---4.8
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Vampire---4.8
% Problem : SEU928^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -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 May 21 03:52:13 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.37s
% Output : Refutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SEU928^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.12/0.14 % Command : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sun May 19 16:39:38 EDT 2024
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.35 This is a TH0_THM_EQU_NAR problem
% 0.14/0.35 Running vampire_ho --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule snake_tptp_hol --cores 8 -m 12000 -t 300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)lrs+1004_1:128_cond=on:e2e=on:sp=weighted_frequency:i=18:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/18Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18068)dis+1010_1:1_au=on:cbe=off:chr=on:fsr=off:hfsq=on:nm=64:sos=theory:sp=weighted_frequency:i=27:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/27Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)First to succeed.
% 0.14/0.37 % (18067)lrs+10_1:1_c=on:cnfonf=conj_eager:fd=off:fe=off:kws=frequency:spb=intro:i=4:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/4Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18069)lrs+10_1:1_au=on:inj=on:i=2:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/2Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18066)lrs+1002_1:8_bd=off:fd=off:hud=10:tnu=1:i=183:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/183Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18073)lrs+10_1:1_bet=on:cnfonf=off:fd=off:hud=5:inj=on:i=3:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/3Mi)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Refutation found. Thanks to Tanya!
% 0.14/0.37 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.37 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.37 thf(func_def_3, type, sK0: $i > $i).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f23,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 $false),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(subsumption_resolution,[],[f22,f10])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f10,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 (sK2 != sK1)),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(cnf_transformation,[],[f9])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f9,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ! [X1,X2] : ((X1 = X2) | ((sK0 @ X1) != (sK0 @ X2))) & (((sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK1)) = (sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK2))) & (sK2 != sK1))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(skolemisation,[status(esa),new_symbols(skolem,[sK0,sK1,sK2])],[f6,f8,f7])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f7,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ? [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X1,X2] : ((X1 = X2) | ((X0 @ X1) != (X0 @ X2))) & ? [X3,X4] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X3)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X4))) & (X3 != X4))) => (! [X2,X1] : ((X1 = X2) | ((sK0 @ X1) != (sK0 @ X2))) & ? [X4,X3] : (((sK0 @ (sK0 @ X3)) = (sK0 @ (sK0 @ X4))) & (X3 != X4)))),
% 0.14/0.37 introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f8,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ? [X4,X3] : (((sK0 @ (sK0 @ X3)) = (sK0 @ (sK0 @ X4))) & (X3 != X4)) => (((sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK1)) = (sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK2))) & (sK2 != sK1))),
% 0.14/0.37 introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f6,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ? [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X1,X2] : ((X1 = X2) | ((X0 @ X1) != (X0 @ X2))) & ? [X3,X4] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X3)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X4))) & (X3 != X4)))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(rectify,[],[f5])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f5,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ? [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X2,X1] : ((X1 = X2) | ((X0 @ X1) != (X0 @ X2))) & ? [X4,X3] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X3)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X4))) & (X3 != X4)))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(ennf_transformation,[],[f4])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f4,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ~! [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ X1) = (X0 @ X2)) => (X1 = X2)) => ! [X3,X4] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X3)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X4))) => (X3 = X4)))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(rectify,[],[f2])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f2,negated_conjecture,(
% 0.14/0.37 ~! [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X2,X1] : (((X0 @ X1) = (X0 @ X2)) => (X1 = X2)) => ! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X1)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X2))) => (X1 = X2)))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(negated_conjecture,[],[f1])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f1,conjecture,(
% 0.14/0.37 ! [X0 : $i > $i] : (! [X2,X1] : (((X0 @ X1) = (X0 @ X2)) => (X1 = X2)) => ! [X1,X2] : (((X0 @ (X0 @ X1)) = (X0 @ (X0 @ X2))) => (X1 = X2)))),
% 0.14/0.37 file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cTHM48A_pme)).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f22,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 (sK2 = sK1)),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(equality_resolution,[],[f19])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f19,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ( ! [X0 : $i] : (((sK0 @ sK1) != (sK0 @ X0)) | (sK2 = X0)) )),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(superposition,[],[f12,f17])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f17,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ((sK0 @ sK2) = (sK0 @ sK1))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(equality_resolution,[],[f14])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f14,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ( ! [X0 : $i] : (((sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK1)) != (sK0 @ X0)) | ((sK0 @ sK2) = X0)) )),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(superposition,[],[f12,f11])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f11,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ((sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK1)) = (sK0 @ (sK0 @ sK2)))),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(cnf_transformation,[],[f9])).
% 0.14/0.37 thf(f12,plain,(
% 0.14/0.37 ( ! [X2 : $i,X1 : $i] : (((sK0 @ X1) != (sK0 @ X2)) | (X1 = X2)) )),
% 0.14/0.37 inference(cnf_transformation,[],[f9])).
% 0.14/0.37 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)------------------------------
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Version: Vampire 4.8 HO - Sledgehammer schedules (2023-10-19)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Termination reason: Refutation
% 0.14/0.37
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Memory used [KB]: 5500
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Time elapsed: 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)Instructions burned: 2 (million)
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)------------------------------
% 0.14/0.37 % (18072)------------------------------
% 0.14/0.37 % (18063)Success in time 0.015 s
% 0.14/0.37 % Vampire---4.8 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------