TSTP Solution File: SWV278-2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SWV278-2 : 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/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s

% Computer : n007.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 2.51s 1.60s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.64s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :   12
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   19 (   9 unt;   8 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   13 (   2 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    8 (   6   ~;   2   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    7 (   5   >;   2   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   3 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (;   6   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_in > #nlpp > c_Message_Oparts > c_Message_Omsg_OKey > c_Message_OinvKey > c_Message_Oanalz > v_K_H > v_H > tc_Message_Omsg

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

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

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

tff(c_in,type,
    c_in: ( $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(c_Message_OinvKey,type,
    c_Message_OinvKey: $i > $i ).

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

tff(f_28,axiom,
    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_33,axiom,
    ! [V_X,V_H] :
      ( ~ c_in(V_X,c_Message_Oanalz(V_H),tc_Message_Omsg)
      | c_in(V_X,c_Message_Oparts(V_H),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_35,axiom,
    ! [V_y] : ( c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(V_y)) = V_y ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_27,axiom,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_4,plain,
    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_28]) ).

tff(c_27,plain,
    ! [V_X_5,V_H_6] :
      ( c_in(V_X_5,c_Message_Oparts(V_H_6),tc_Message_Omsg)
      | ~ c_in(V_X_5,c_Message_Oanalz(V_H_6),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_33]) ).

tff(c_8,plain,
    ! [V_y_3] : ( c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(V_y_3)) = V_y_3 ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).

tff(c_9,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_8,c_2]) ).

tff(c_30,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_27,c_9]) ).

tff(c_34,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_4,c_30]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : SWV278-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.15/0.36  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.36  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 22:59:09 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.51/1.60  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.51/1.61  
% 2.51/1.61  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.64/1.63  
% 2.64/1.63  Inference rules
% 2.64/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.64/1.63  #Ref     : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Sup     : 5
% 2.64/1.63  #Fact    : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Define  : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Split   : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Chain   : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Close   : 0
% 2.64/1.63  
% 2.64/1.63  Ordering : KBO
% 2.64/1.63  
% 2.64/1.63  Simplification rules
% 2.64/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.64/1.63  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Demod        : 2
% 2.64/1.63  #Tautology    : 4
% 2.64/1.63  #SimpNegUnit  : 0
% 2.64/1.63  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.64/1.63  
% 2.64/1.63  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.64/1.63  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.64/1.63  
% 2.64/1.63  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.64/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.64/1.64  Preprocessing        : 0.39
% 2.64/1.64  Parsing              : 0.21
% 2.64/1.64  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.64/1.64  Main loop            : 0.14
% 2.64/1.64  Inferencing          : 0.07
% 2.64/1.64  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.64/1.64  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.64/1.64  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.64/1.64  Subsumption          : 0.02
% 2.64/1.64  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  Total                : 0.58
% 2.64/1.64  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.64/1.64  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------