TSTP Solution File: SWV390+1 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : SWV390+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n024.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 17:47:04 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 8.99s 2.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 8.99s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 10 unt; 2 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 37 ( 2 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 56 ( 15 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_26,plain,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ less_than(X4,X5)
| ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,insert_slb(X2,pair(X5,X4)),X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_26) ).
cnf(i_0_32,plain,
triple(insert_pqp(X1,X2),insert_slb(X3,pair(X2,bottom)),X4) = insert_cpq(triple(X1,X3,X4),X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_32) ).
cnf(i_0_44,plain,
less_than(bottom,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_44) ).
cnf(i_0_49,lemma,
( less_than(X1,X2)
| ~ pair_in_list(X3,X2,X1)
| ~ check_cpq(triple(X4,X3,X5)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_49) ).
cnf(i_0_45,negated_conjecture,
check_cpq(insert_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0),esk4_0)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_45) ).
cnf(i_0_48,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| pair_in_list(X2,esk5_2(X1,X2),esk6_2(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_48) ).
cnf(i_0_47,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ less_than(esk6_2(X1,X2),esk5_2(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_47) ).
cnf(i_0_46,negated_conjecture,
~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-449zl7qr/input.p',i_0_46) ).
cnf(c_0_58,plain,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ less_than(X4,X5)
| ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,insert_slb(X2,pair(X5,X4)),X3)) ),
i_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_59,plain,
triple(insert_pqp(X1,X2),insert_slb(X3,pair(X2,bottom)),X4) = insert_cpq(triple(X1,X3,X4),X2),
i_0_32 ).
cnf(c_0_60,plain,
less_than(bottom,X1),
i_0_44 ).
cnf(c_0_61,lemma,
( less_than(X1,X2)
| ~ pair_in_list(X3,X2,X1)
| ~ check_cpq(triple(X4,X3,X5)) ),
i_0_49 ).
cnf(c_0_62,plain,
( check_cpq(triple(insert_pqp(X1,X2),X3,X4))
| ~ check_cpq(insert_cpq(triple(X1,X3,X4),X2)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_58,c_0_59]),c_0_60])]) ).
cnf(c_0_63,lemma,
( less_than(X1,X2)
| ~ pair_in_list(X3,X2,X1)
| ~ check_cpq(insert_cpq(triple(X4,X3,X5),X6)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_61,c_0_62]) ).
cnf(c_0_64,negated_conjecture,
check_cpq(insert_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0),esk4_0)),
i_0_45 ).
cnf(c_0_65,negated_conjecture,
( less_than(X1,X2)
| ~ pair_in_list(esk2_0,X2,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_63,c_0_64]) ).
cnf(c_0_66,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| pair_in_list(X2,esk5_2(X1,X2),esk6_2(X1,X2)) ),
i_0_48 ).
cnf(c_0_67,lemma,
( check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
| ~ less_than(esk6_2(X1,X2),esk5_2(X1,X2)) ),
i_0_47 ).
cnf(c_0_68,negated_conjecture,
~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),
i_0_46 ).
cnf(c_0_69,lemma,
check_cpq(triple(X1,esk2_0,X2)),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_65,c_0_66]),c_0_67]) ).
cnf(c_0_70,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_68,c_0_69])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.12 % Problem : SWV390+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.08/0.13 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n024.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 : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jun 14 21:53:20 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.45 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.19/0.46 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.46 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.19/0.46 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.19/0.46 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 8.99/2.52 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 8.99/2.52 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 8.99/2.52 # Preprocessing time : 0.018 s
% 8.99/2.52
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof found!
% 8.99/2.52 # SZS status Theorem
% 8.99/2.52 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object total steps : 21
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object clause steps : 13
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object formula steps : 8
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object clause conjectures : 4
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object formula conjectures : 2
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object initial clauses used : 8
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object initial formulas used : 8
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object generating inferences : 4
% 8.99/2.52 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 5
% 8.99/2.52 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 8.99/2.52 # Parsed axioms : 53
% 8.99/2.52 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Initial clauses : 53
% 8.99/2.52 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Initial clauses in saturation : 53
% 8.99/2.52 # Processed clauses : 122
% 8.99/2.52 # ...of these trivial : 1
% 8.99/2.52 # ...subsumed : 13
% 8.99/2.52 # ...remaining for further processing : 108
% 8.99/2.52 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 8.99/2.52 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 8.99/2.52 # Generated clauses : 361
% 8.99/2.52 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 328
% 8.99/2.52 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 8
% 8.99/2.52 # Paramodulations : 355
% 8.99/2.52 # Factorizations : 4
% 8.99/2.52 # Equation resolutions : 3
% 8.99/2.52 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Current number of processed clauses : 105
% 8.99/2.52 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 17
% 8.99/2.52 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Negative unit clauses : 12
% 8.99/2.52 # Non-unit-clauses : 76
% 8.99/2.52 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 259
% 8.99/2.52 # ...number of literals in the above : 968
% 8.99/2.52 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 8.99/2.52 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1435
% 8.99/2.52 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 787
% 8.99/2.52 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 18
% 8.99/2.52 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 137
% 8.99/2.52 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 8.99/2.52 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 8.99/2.52 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Condensation successes : 0
% 8.99/2.52 # Termbank termtop insertions : 6978
% 8.99/2.52
% 8.99/2.52 # -------------------------------------------------
% 8.99/2.52 # User time : 0.028 s
% 8.99/2.52 # System time : 0.003 s
% 8.99/2.52 # Total time : 0.031 s
% 8.99/2.52 # ...preprocessing : 0.018 s
% 8.99/2.52 # ...main loop : 0.013 s
% 8.99/2.52 # Maximum resident set size: 7136 pages
% 8.99/2.52
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------