TSTP Solution File: SWV065+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SWV065+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n019.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 : Wed Jul 20 18:15:03 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 42 ( 13 ~; 9 |; 18 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 3 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(cl5_nebula_array_0006,conjecture,
( ( leq(n0,pv10)
& leq(n0,pv53)
& leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
& leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) )
=> ( leq(n0,n0)
& leq(n0,pv10)
& leq(n0,pv53)
& leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
& leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',cl5_nebula_array_0006) ).
fof(reflexivity_leq,axiom,
! [X1] : leq(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',reflexivity_leq) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( leq(n0,pv10)
& leq(n0,pv53)
& leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
& leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) )
=> ( leq(n0,n0)
& leq(n0,pv10)
& leq(n0,pv53)
& leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
& leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_array_0006]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( leq(n0,pv10)
& leq(n0,pv53)
& leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
& leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1))
& ( ~ leq(n0,n0)
| ~ leq(n0,pv10)
| ~ leq(n0,pv53)
| ~ leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
| ~ leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X2] : leq(X2,X2),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_leq]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1))
| ~ leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
| ~ leq(n0,pv53)
| ~ leq(n0,pv10)
| ~ leq(n0,n0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
leq(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
leq(n0,pv10),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
leq(n0,pv53),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1))
| ~ leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
leq(pv10,minus(n135300,n1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
leq(pv53,minus(n5,n1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10])]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SWV065+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 09:39:39 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 10
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 92
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 24
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses : 75
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 73
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 74
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 73
% 0.22/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 189
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 163
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 187
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 71
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 46
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 158
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 340
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 29
% 0.22/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 5480
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.019 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3180 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------