TSTP Solution File: SWV277-2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SWV277-2 : 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 : n011.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 11:03:29 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.60s 1.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.60s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 15
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 24 ( 8 unt; 10 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 23 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 20 ( 11 ~; 9 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 10 ( 6 >; 4 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 (; 18 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_lessequals > c_in > #nlpp > tc_set > c_Message_Oparts > c_Message_OkeysFor > c_Message_Oanalz > v_K > v_H > tc_nat > tc_Message_Omsg
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(v_K,type,
v_K: $i ).
tff(c_Message_OkeysFor,type,
c_Message_OkeysFor: $i > $i ).
tff(c_Message_Oanalz,type,
c_Message_Oanalz: $i > $i ).
tff(tc_set,type,
tc_set: $i > $i ).
tff(c_lessequals,type,
c_lessequals: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(c_in,type,
c_in: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(tc_nat,type,
tc_nat: $i ).
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_42,axiom,
~ c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(c_Message_Oparts(v_H)),tc_nat),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_27,axiom,
! [V_H] : c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(V_H),c_Message_Oparts(V_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_43,axiom,
c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)),tc_nat),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_32,axiom,
! [V_G,V_H] :
( ~ c_lessequals(V_G,V_H,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_OkeysFor(V_G),c_Message_OkeysFor(V_H),tc_set(tc_nat)) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_40,axiom,
! [V_c,V_A,T_a,V_B] :
( ~ c_in(V_c,V_A,T_a)
| ~ c_lessequals(V_A,V_B,tc_set(T_a))
| c_in(V_c,V_B,T_a) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
~ c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(c_Message_Oparts(v_H)),tc_nat),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_42]) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [V_H_1] : c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(V_H_1),c_Message_Oparts(V_H_1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)),tc_nat),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_43]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [V_G_2,V_H_3] :
( c_lessequals(c_Message_OkeysFor(V_G_2),c_Message_OkeysFor(V_H_3),tc_set(tc_nat))
| ~ c_lessequals(V_G_2,V_H_3,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).
tff(c_13,plain,
! [V_c_11,V_B_12,T_a_13,V_A_14] :
( c_in(V_c_11,V_B_12,T_a_13)
| ~ c_lessequals(V_A_14,V_B_12,tc_set(T_a_13))
| ~ c_in(V_c_11,V_A_14,T_a_13) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_40]) ).
tff(c_21,plain,
! [V_c_17,V_H_18,V_G_19] :
( c_in(V_c_17,c_Message_OkeysFor(V_H_18),tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(V_c_17,c_Message_OkeysFor(V_G_19),tc_nat)
| ~ c_lessequals(V_G_19,V_H_18,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_13]) ).
tff(c_25,plain,
! [V_H_20] :
( c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(V_H_20),tc_nat)
| ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),V_H_20,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_10,c_21]) ).
tff(c_29,plain,
c_in(v_K,c_Message_OkeysFor(c_Message_Oparts(v_H)),tc_nat),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_25]) ).
tff(c_33,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_8,c_29]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14 % Problem : SWV277-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.15 % 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
% 0.15/0.37 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.37 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.37 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.37 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 22:39:51 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 2.60/1.61 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.60/1.62
% 2.60/1.62 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.60/1.65
% 2.60/1.65 Inference rules
% 2.60/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.60/1.65 #Ref : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Sup : 4
% 2.60/1.65 #Fact : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Define : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Split : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Chain : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Close : 0
% 2.60/1.65
% 2.60/1.65 Ordering : KBO
% 2.60/1.65
% 2.60/1.65 Simplification rules
% 2.60/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.60/1.65 #Subsume : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Demod : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Tautology : 0
% 2.60/1.65 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 2.60/1.65 #BackRed : 0
% 2.60/1.65
% 2.60/1.65 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.60/1.65 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.60/1.65
% 2.60/1.65 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.60/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.60/1.65 Preprocessing : 0.39
% 2.60/1.65 Parsing : 0.22
% 2.60/1.65 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.60/1.65 Main loop : 0.17
% 2.60/1.65 Inferencing : 0.08
% 2.60/1.65 Reduction : 0.04
% 2.60/1.65 Demodulation : 0.03
% 2.60/1.65 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.60/1.65 Subsumption : 0.03
% 2.60/1.65 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.60/1.65 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.60/1.65 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.60/1.65 Total : 0.61
% 2.60/1.65 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.60/1.65 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.60/1.65 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.60/1.65 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------