TSTP Solution File: SWW962+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SWW962+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n019.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 : Thu Jul 21 00:11:46 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 16 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 24 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 10 ( 6 ~; 3 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 7 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(ax83,axiom,
! [X12,X13] : constr_assoc_pair_2_get_1_bitstring(tuple_assoc_pair(X12,X13)) = X13,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',ax83) ).
fof(ax82,axiom,
! [X9,X10,X11] : tuple_assoc_pair(X9,tuple_assoc_pair(X10,X11)) = tuple_assoc_pair(tuple_assoc_pair(X9,X10),X11),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',ax82) ).
fof(ax143,axiom,
! [X94,X95] :
( pred_attacker(tuple_assoc_pair(X94,X95))
=> pred_attacker(X94) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',ax143) ).
fof(co0,conjecture,
! [X131] : pred_attacker(tuple_2(name_Nb(X131),name_objective)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',co0) ).
fof(ax162,axiom,
! [X113] : pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X113)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',ax162) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X14,X15] : constr_assoc_pair_2_get_1_bitstring(tuple_assoc_pair(X14,X15)) = X15,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax83]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X12,X13,X14] : tuple_assoc_pair(X12,tuple_assoc_pair(X13,X14)) = tuple_assoc_pair(tuple_assoc_pair(X12,X13),X14),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax82]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X96,X97] :
( ~ pred_attacker(tuple_assoc_pair(X96,X97))
| pred_attacker(X96) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax143])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
constr_assoc_pair_2_get_1_bitstring(tuple_assoc_pair(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
tuple_assoc_pair(X1,tuple_assoc_pair(X2,X3)) = tuple_assoc_pair(tuple_assoc_pair(X1,X2),X3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X131] : pred_attacker(tuple_2(name_Nb(X131),name_objective)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( pred_attacker(X1)
| ~ pred_attacker(tuple_assoc_pair(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
tuple_assoc_pair(X1,X2) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X114] : pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X114)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax162]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(tuple_2(name_Nb(esk1_0),name_objective)),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( pred_attacker(X1)
| ~ pred_attacker(X2) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(tuple_2(name_Nb(esk1_0),name_objective)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
pred_attacker(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SWW962+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.4.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jun 5 14:50:10 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.23/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # Failure: Out of unprocessed clauses!
% 0.23/1.40 # OLD status GaveUp
% 0.23/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 177
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 76
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses : 101
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 101
% 0.23/1.40 # Processed clauses : 106
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 104
% 0.23/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Generated clauses : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Paramodulations : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 104
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 79
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 13
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 194
% 0.23/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 46
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 442
% 0.23/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2932
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.40 # User time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/1.40 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3336 pages
% 0.23/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_f171197f65f27d1ba69648a20c844832c84a5dd7 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.019 s
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 20
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 9
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 11
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.23/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 177
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses : 177
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 176
% 0.23/1.40 # Processed clauses : 189
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.23/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 188
% 0.23/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 64
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 35
% 0.23/1.40 # Generated clauses : 243
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 220
% 0.23/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Paramodulations : 243
% 0.23/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 89
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 78
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7
% 0.23/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 100
% 0.23/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3405
% 0.23/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3124
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 65
% 0.23/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1398
% 0.23/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 34
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 34
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 8460
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.40 # User time : 0.027 s
% 0.23/1.40 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3784 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------