TSTP Solution File: SWV320-2 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SWV320-2 : 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 : n003.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 11:03:42 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.35s 1.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.55s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 18
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 8 unt; 14 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 : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 9 ( 6 >; 3 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 13 ( 13 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 (; 4 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_in > c_Event_Oknows > #nlpp > tc_List_Olist > c_Public_OshrK > c_Message_Oparts > c_Message_Omsg_OKey > v_evs > v_A > tc_Message_Omsg > tc_Message_Oagent > tc_Event_Oevent > c_OtwayRees_Ootway > c_Message_Oagent_OSpy > c_Event_Obad
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(c_Event_Oknows,type,
c_Event_Oknows: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(c_Public_OshrK,type,
c_Public_OshrK: $i > $i ).
tff(c_OtwayRees_Ootway,type,
c_OtwayRees_Ootway: $i ).
tff(c_Event_Obad,type,
c_Event_Obad: $i ).
tff(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,type,
c_Message_Oagent_OSpy: $i ).
tff(tc_Event_Oevent,type,
tc_Event_Oevent: $i ).
tff(tc_Message_Oagent,type,
tc_Message_Oagent: $i ).
tff(tc_List_Olist,type,
tc_List_Olist: $i > $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_evs,type,
v_evs: $i ).
tff(v_A,type,
v_A: $i ).
tff(c_Message_Omsg_OKey,type,
c_Message_Omsg_OKey: $i > $i ).
tff(f_29,axiom,
~ c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_27,axiom,
c_in(v_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_26,axiom,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(v_A)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,v_evs)),tc_Message_Omsg),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_37,axiom,
! [V_evs,V_A] :
( ~ c_in(V_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent))
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(V_A)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,V_evs)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(V_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
~ c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_29]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
c_in(v_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(v_A)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,v_evs)),tc_Message_Omsg),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_26]) ).
tff(c_9,plain,
! [V_A_3,V_evs_4] :
( c_in(V_A_3,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(V_A_3)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,V_evs_4)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ~ c_in(V_evs_4,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
( c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent)
| ~ c_in(v_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_9]) ).
tff(c_15,plain,
c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_4,c_12]) ).
tff(c_17,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_6,c_15]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.13 % Problem : SWV320-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.12/0.14 % 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
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 23:12:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 2.35/1.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.35/1.53
% 2.35/1.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.55/1.58
% 2.55/1.58 Inference rules
% 2.55/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.55/1.58 #Ref : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Sup : 1
% 2.55/1.58 #Fact : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Define : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Split : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Chain : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Close : 0
% 2.55/1.58
% 2.55/1.58 Ordering : KBO
% 2.55/1.58
% 2.55/1.58 Simplification rules
% 2.55/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.55/1.58 #Subsume : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Demod : 1
% 2.55/1.58 #Tautology : 0
% 2.55/1.58 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 2.55/1.58 #BackRed : 0
% 2.55/1.58
% 2.55/1.58 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.55/1.58 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.55/1.58
% 2.55/1.58 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.55/1.58 ----------------------
% 2.55/1.58 Preprocessing : 0.40
% 2.55/1.58 Parsing : 0.22
% 2.55/1.58 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.55/1.58 Main loop : 0.13
% 2.55/1.58 Inferencing : 0.06
% 2.55/1.58 Reduction : 0.03
% 2.55/1.58 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.55/1.58 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.55/1.58 Subsumption : 0.03
% 2.55/1.58 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.55/1.58 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.55/1.58 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.55/1.58 Total : 0.59
% 2.55/1.58 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.55/1.58 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.55/1.58 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.55/1.58 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------