TSTP Solution File: SWV281-2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SWV281-2 : 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 : n015.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 11:03:30 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 3.80s 2.02s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.90s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 19
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 38 ( 15 unt; 13 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 38 ( 21 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 25 ( 12 ~; 13 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 15 ( 7 >; 8 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 6 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 41 (; 41 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_lessequals > c_in > c_plus > c_List_Olist_OCons > #nlpp > v_sko__urX > c_Message_Omsg_ONonce > c_Event_Oused > v_evs_H > v_evs > tc_nat > tc_Message_Omsg > c_List_Olist_ONil > c_0
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(v_sko__urX,type,
v_sko__urX: $i > $i ).
tff(c_List_Olist_ONil,type,
c_List_Olist_ONil: $i ).
tff(c_0,type,
c_0: $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(c_Event_Oused,type,
c_Event_Oused: $i > $i ).
tff(tc_Message_Omsg,type,
tc_Message_Omsg: $i ).
tff(v_evs_H,type,
v_evs_H: $i ).
tff(v_evs,type,
v_evs: $i ).
tff(c_plus,type,
c_plus: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(c_List_Olist_OCons,type,
c_List_Olist_OCons: ( $i * $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce,type,
c_Message_Omsg_ONonce: $i > $i ).
tff(f_43,axiom,
! [V_y] : ( c_plus(c_0,V_y,tc_nat) = V_y ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_36,axiom,
! [V_n,V_m] : c_lessequals(V_n,c_plus(V_m,V_n,tc_nat),tc_nat),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_31,axiom,
! [V_U,V_V] :
( ( V_U = V_V )
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_V),c_Event_Oused(v_evs_H),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_U),c_Event_Oused(v_evs),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_49,axiom,
! [V_U,V_evs] :
( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_U),c_Event_Oused(V_evs),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__urX(V_evs),V_U,tc_nat) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_41,axiom,
! [V_m,V_k,V_n] :
( ( c_plus(V_m,V_k,tc_nat) != c_plus(V_n,V_k,tc_nat) )
| ( V_m = V_n ) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_34,axiom,
! [V_a_H,V_list_H,T_a] : ( c_List_Olist_ONil != c_List_Olist_OCons(V_a_H,V_list_H,T_a) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_10,plain,
! [V_y_11] : ( c_plus(c_0,V_y_11,tc_nat) = V_y_11 ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_43]) ).
tff(c_23,plain,
! [V_n_18,V_m_19] : c_lessequals(V_n_18,c_plus(V_m_19,V_n_18,tc_nat),tc_nat),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_26,plain,
! [V_y_11] : c_lessequals(V_y_11,V_y_11,tc_nat),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_10,c_23]) ).
tff(c_46,plain,
! [V_U_28,V_V_29] :
( c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_U_28),c_Event_Oused(v_evs),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_V_29),c_Event_Oused(v_evs_H),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ( V_V_29 = V_U_28 ) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_31]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
! [V_evs_13,V_U_12] :
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__urX(V_evs_13),V_U_12,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_U_12),c_Event_Oused(V_evs_13),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_49]) ).
tff(c_1083,plain,
! [V_U_216,V_V_217] :
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__urX(v_evs),V_U_216,tc_nat)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_V_217),c_Event_Oused(v_evs_H),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ( V_V_217 = V_U_216 ) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_46,c_12]) ).
tff(c_1186,plain,
! [V_V_236] :
( c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(V_V_236),c_Event_Oused(v_evs_H),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ( v_sko__urX(v_evs) = V_V_236 ) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_26,c_1083]) ).
tff(c_1403,plain,
! [V_V_255] :
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__urX(v_evs_H),V_V_255,tc_nat)
| ( v_sko__urX(v_evs) = V_V_255 ) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_1186,c_12]) ).
tff(c_1462,plain,
v_sko__urX(v_evs_H) = v_sko__urX(v_evs),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_26,c_1403]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [V_n_6,V_m_7] : c_lessequals(V_n_6,c_plus(V_m_7,V_n_6,tc_nat),tc_nat),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_1463,plain,
! [V_m_7] : ( c_plus(V_m_7,v_sko__urX(v_evs_H),tc_nat) = v_sko__urX(v_evs) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_6,c_1403]) ).
tff(c_1585,plain,
! [V_m_7] : ( c_plus(V_m_7,v_sko__urX(v_evs),tc_nat) = v_sko__urX(v_evs) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_1462,c_1463]) ).
tff(c_1586,plain,
! [V_m_292] : ( c_plus(V_m_292,v_sko__urX(v_evs),tc_nat) = v_sko__urX(v_evs) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_1462,c_1463]) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
! [V_n_10,V_m_8,V_k_9] :
( ( V_n_10 = V_m_8 )
| ( c_plus(V_n_10,V_k_9,tc_nat) != c_plus(V_m_8,V_k_9,tc_nat) ) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_41]) ).
tff(c_1594,plain,
! [V_m_8,V_m_292] :
( ( V_m_8 = V_m_292 )
| ( c_plus(V_m_8,v_sko__urX(v_evs),tc_nat) != v_sko__urX(v_evs) ) ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_1586,c_8]) ).
tff(c_2051,plain,
! [V_m_477,V_m_476] : ( V_m_477 = V_m_476 ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_1585,c_1594]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [V_a_H_3,V_list_H_4,T_a_5] : ( c_List_Olist_OCons(V_a_H_3,V_list_H_4,T_a_5) != c_List_Olist_ONil ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).
tff(c_2273,plain,
! [V_m_477] : ( c_List_Olist_ONil != V_m_477 ),
inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2051,c_4]) ).
tff(c_2279,plain,
$false,
inference(reflexivity,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2273]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.17/0.17 % Problem : SWV281-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.17/0.18 % 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
% 0.18/0.38 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.38 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.18/0.38 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.18/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.38 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 23:02:44 EDT 2023
% 0.18/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 3.80/2.02 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.80/2.02
% 3.80/2.02 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 3.90/2.05
% 3.90/2.05 Inference rules
% 3.90/2.05 ----------------------
% 3.90/2.05 #Ref : 2
% 3.90/2.05 #Sup : 203
% 3.90/2.05 #Fact : 0
% 3.90/2.05 #Define : 0
% 3.90/2.05 #Split : 0
% 3.90/2.05 #Chain : 0
% 3.90/2.05 #Close : 0
% 3.90/2.05
% 3.90/2.05 Ordering : KBO
% 3.90/2.05
% 3.90/2.05 Simplification rules
% 3.90/2.05 ----------------------
% 3.90/2.05 #Subsume : 36
% 3.90/2.05 #Demod : 27
% 3.90/2.05 #Tautology : 11
% 3.90/2.05 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 3.90/2.05 #BackRed : 1
% 3.90/2.05
% 3.90/2.05 #Partial instantiations: 484
% 3.90/2.05 #Strategies tried : 1
% 3.90/2.05
% 3.90/2.05 Timing (in seconds)
% 3.90/2.05 ----------------------
% 3.90/2.06 Preprocessing : 0.46
% 3.90/2.06 Parsing : 0.22
% 3.90/2.06 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 3.90/2.06 Main loop : 0.50
% 3.90/2.06 Inferencing : 0.25
% 3.90/2.06 Reduction : 0.11
% 3.90/2.06 Demodulation : 0.08
% 3.90/2.06 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 3.90/2.06 Subsumption : 0.08
% 3.90/2.06 Abstraction : 0.02
% 3.90/2.06 MUC search : 0.00
% 3.90/2.06 Cooper : 0.00
% 3.90/2.06 Total : 1.01
% 3.90/2.06 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 3.90/2.06 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 3.90/2.06 Index Matching : 0.00
% 3.90/2.06 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------