TSTP Solution File: SWV389+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SWV389+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n023.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Wed Jul 20 18:16:26 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 30 ( 3 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 29 ( 15 ~; 8 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn 14 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l25_co,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ( ~ check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l25_co) ).
fof(l25_l40,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
& ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) )
=> check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l25_l40) ).
fof(ax52,axiom,
! [X1] : removemin_cpq_eff(X1) = remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(X1),findmin_cpq_res(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+3.ax',ax52) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ( ~ check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l25_co]) ).
fof(c_0_4,lemma,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X4,X5,X6)))
| ~ ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X4,X5,X6)))
| check_cpq(triple(X4,X5,X6)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l25_l40])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X2] : removemin_cpq_eff(X2) = remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(X2),findmin_cpq_res(X2)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax52]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))
& check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))
& ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
removemin_cpq_eff(X1) = remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(X1),findmin_cpq_res(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
ok(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
check_cpq(removemin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ check_cpq(remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)),findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3))))
| ~ ok(remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)),findmin_cpq_res(triple(X1,X2,X3)))) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
ok(remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),findmin_cpq_res(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
check_cpq(remove_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),findmin_cpq_res(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11 % Problem : SWV389+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.11 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.11/0.32 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.32 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.32 % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 13:35:20 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.41 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.41 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.41 # Preprocessing time : 0.021 s
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object total steps : 16
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause steps : 9
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 7
% 0.22/1.41 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.41 # Parsed axioms : 43
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses : 38
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses in saturation : 37
% 0.22/1.41 # Processed clauses : 23
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # ...remaining for further processing : 23
% 0.22/1.41 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Generated clauses : 17
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 11
% 0.22/1.41 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Paramodulations : 15
% 0.22/1.41 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of processed clauses : 23
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit-clauses : 11
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 25
% 0.22/1.41 # ...number of literals in the above : 65
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20
% 0.22/1.41 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 15
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2833
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.41 # User time : 0.015 s
% 0.22/1.41 # System time : 0.007 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Maximum resident set size: 3076 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------