TSTP Solution File: SWV267-2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SWV267-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 : n032.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 11:03:26 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 2.07s 1.48s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.07s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :   10
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   17 (   8 unt;   6 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   16 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   12 (   7   ~;   5   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    8 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    5 (   3   >;   2   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   3 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   12 (;  12   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_lessequals > #nlpp > tc_set > c_Message_Oparts > v_H > v_G > tc_Message_Omsg

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(v_G,type,
    v_G: $i ).

tff(tc_set,type,
    tc_set: $i > $i ).

tff(c_lessequals,type,
    c_lessequals: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(tc_Message_Omsg,type,
    tc_Message_Omsg: $i ).

tff(c_Message_Oparts,type,
    c_Message_Oparts: $i > $i ).

tff(v_H,type,
    v_H: $i ).

tff(f_28,axiom,
    ~ c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_26,axiom,
    c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(v_G),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_30,axiom,
    ! [V_H] : c_lessequals(V_H,c_Message_Oparts(V_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_38,axiom,
    ! [V_B,V_C,T_a,V_A] :
      ( ~ c_lessequals(V_B,V_C,tc_set(T_a))
      | ~ c_lessequals(V_A,V_B,tc_set(T_a))
      | c_lessequals(V_A,V_C,tc_set(T_a)) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_4,plain,
    ~ c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_28]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(v_G),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_26]) ).

tff(c_6,plain,
    ! [V_H_1] : c_lessequals(V_H_1,c_Message_Oparts(V_H_1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_30]) ).

tff(c_10,plain,
    ! [V_A_7,V_C_8,T_a_9,V_B_10] :
      ( c_lessequals(V_A_7,V_C_8,tc_set(T_a_9))
      | ~ c_lessequals(V_A_7,V_B_10,tc_set(T_a_9))
      | ~ c_lessequals(V_B_10,V_C_8,tc_set(T_a_9)) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_38]) ).

tff(c_17,plain,
    ! [V_H_11,V_C_12] :
      ( c_lessequals(V_H_11,V_C_12,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
      | ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(V_H_11),V_C_12,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_6,c_10]) ).

tff(c_20,plain,
    c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_17]) ).

tff(c_28,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_20]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11  % Problem  : SWV267-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.12  % 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
% 0.11/0.31  % Computer : n032.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.31  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.31  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.31  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.31  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.31  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.31  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.31  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 22:52:51 EDT 2023
% 0.11/0.31  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.07/1.48  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.07/1.48  
% 2.07/1.48  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.07/1.52  
% 2.07/1.52  Inference rules
% 2.07/1.52  ----------------------
% 2.07/1.52  #Ref     : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Sup     : 4
% 2.07/1.52  #Fact    : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Define  : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Split   : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Chain   : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Close   : 0
% 2.07/1.52  
% 2.07/1.52  Ordering : KBO
% 2.07/1.52  
% 2.07/1.52  Simplification rules
% 2.07/1.52  ----------------------
% 2.07/1.52  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Demod        : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.07/1.52  #SimpNegUnit  : 1
% 2.07/1.52  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.07/1.52  
% 2.07/1.52  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.07/1.52  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.07/1.52  
% 2.07/1.52  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.07/1.52  ----------------------
% 2.07/1.52  Preprocessing        : 0.38
% 2.07/1.52  Parsing              : 0.21
% 2.07/1.52  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.07/1.52  Main loop            : 0.14
% 2.07/1.52  Inferencing          : 0.06
% 2.07/1.52  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.07/1.52  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.07/1.52  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.07/1.52  Subsumption          : 0.03
% 2.07/1.52  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  Total                : 0.57
% 2.07/1.52  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.07/1.52  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------