TSTP Solution File: SWV339-2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SWV339-2 : 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 : n006.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 11:03:47 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 2.40s 1.56s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.56s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :   12
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   22 (  11 unt;   9 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   15 (   6 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :    4 (   2   ~;   2   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    3 (   2 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    6 (   4   >;   2   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    8 (   8 usr;   5 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    8 (;   8   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ c_in > #nlpp > c_Public_OshrK > c_Message_Omsg_OKey > c_Event_Oused > v_evs3 > v_K > v_B > v_A > tc_Message_Omsg

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

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

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

tff(v_evs3,type,
    v_evs3: $i ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

tff(f_30,axiom,
    ( ( v_K = c_Public_OshrK(v_B) )
    | ( v_K = c_Public_OshrK(v_A) ) ),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_32,axiom,
    ! [V_A,V_evs] : c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(V_A)),c_Event_Oused(V_evs),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(f_27,axiom,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K),c_Event_Oused(v_evs3),tc_Message_Omsg),
    file(unknown,unknown) ).

tff(c_4,plain,
    ( ( c_Public_OshrK(v_A) = v_K )
    | ( c_Public_OshrK(v_B) = v_K ) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_30]) ).

tff(c_7,plain,
    c_Public_OshrK(v_B) = v_K,
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_4]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    ! [V_A_3,V_evs_4] : c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(V_A_3)),c_Event_Oused(V_evs_4),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).

tff(c_14,plain,
    ! [V_evs_4] : c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K),c_Event_Oused(V_evs_4),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_7,c_12]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K),c_Event_Oused(v_evs3),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).

tff(c_17,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_14,c_2]) ).

tff(c_18,plain,
    c_Public_OshrK(v_A) = v_K,
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_4]) ).

tff(c_24,plain,
    ! [V_A_5,V_evs_6] : c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(V_A_5)),c_Event_Oused(V_evs_6),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).

tff(c_26,plain,
    ! [V_evs_6] : c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K),c_Event_Oused(V_evs_6),tc_Message_Omsg),
    inference(superposition,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_18,c_24]) ).

tff(c_29,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_26,c_2]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : SWV339-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.14  % 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
% 0.13/0.35  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.35  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 22:48:58 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.40/1.56  % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.40/1.57  
% 2.40/1.57  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.56/1.61  
% 2.56/1.61  Inference rules
% 2.56/1.61  ----------------------
% 2.56/1.61  #Ref     : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Sup     : 6
% 2.56/1.61  #Fact    : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Define  : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Split   : 1
% 2.56/1.61  #Chain   : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Close   : 0
% 2.56/1.61  
% 2.56/1.61  Ordering : KBO
% 2.56/1.61  
% 2.56/1.61  Simplification rules
% 2.56/1.61  ----------------------
% 2.56/1.61  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Demod        : 2
% 2.56/1.61  #Tautology    : 4
% 2.56/1.61  #SimpNegUnit  : 0
% 2.56/1.61  #BackRed      : 2
% 2.56/1.61  
% 2.56/1.61  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.56/1.61  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.56/1.61  
% 2.56/1.61  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.56/1.61  ----------------------
% 2.56/1.61  Preprocessing        : 0.38
% 2.56/1.61  Parsing              : 0.21
% 2.56/1.61  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.56/1.61  Main loop            : 0.14
% 2.56/1.61  Inferencing          : 0.06
% 2.56/1.61  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.56/1.61  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.56/1.61  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.56/1.61  Subsumption          : 0.02
% 2.56/1.61  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  Total                : 0.58
% 2.56/1.61  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.56/1.61  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------