TSTP Solution File: SYN054+1 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SYN054+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 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 : n020.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 11:09:09 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 2.11s 1.60s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.11s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :   11
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   21 (   4 unt;   6 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   29 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   26 (  12   ~;   9   |;   2   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    4 (   4   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   13 (;   9   !;   4   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ big_s > big_r > big_q > big_p > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_1

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(big_s,type,
    big_s: $i > $o ).

tff(big_q,type,
    big_q: $i > $o ).

tff('#skF_2',type,
    '#skF_2': $i ).

tff('#skF_1',type,
    '#skF_1': $i ).

tff(big_p,type,
    big_p: $i > $o ).

tff(big_r,type,
    big_r: $i > $o ).

tff(f_49,axiom,
    ! [X] :
      ( ( big_q(X)
        | big_r(X) )
     => big_s(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel24_4) ).

tff(f_31,axiom,
    ~ ? [X] :
        ( big_s(X)
        & big_q(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel24_1) ).

tff(f_37,axiom,
    ! [X] :
      ( big_p(X)
     => ( big_q(X)
        | big_r(X) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel24_2) ).

tff(f_54,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ? [X] :
        ( big_p(X)
        & big_r(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel24) ).

tff(f_43,axiom,
    ( ~ ? [X] : big_p(X)
   => ? [Y] : big_q(Y) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel24_3) ).

tff(c_15,plain,
    ! [X_7] :
      ( ~ big_q(X_7)
      | big_s(X_7) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_49]) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ! [X_1] :
      ( ~ big_q(X_1)
      | ~ big_s(X_1) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_31]) ).

tff(c_19,plain,
    ! [X_7] : ~ big_q(X_7),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_15,c_2]) ).

tff(c_4,plain,
    ! [X_2] :
      ( big_r(X_2)
      | big_q(X_2)
      | ~ big_p(X_2) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).

tff(c_24,plain,
    ! [X_10] :
      ( big_r(X_10)
      | ~ big_p(X_10) ),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_19,c_4]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    ! [X_4] :
      ( ~ big_r(X_4)
      | ~ big_p(X_4) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_54]) ).

tff(c_28,plain,
    ! [X_10] : ~ big_p(X_10),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_24,c_12]) ).

tff(c_6,plain,
    ( big_q('#skF_2')
    | big_p('#skF_1') ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_43]) ).

tff(c_21,plain,
    big_p('#skF_1'),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_19,c_6]) ).

tff(c_30,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_28,c_21]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : SYN054+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % 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
% 0.15/0.36  % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.36  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 17:34:52 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.11/1.60  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.11/1.60  
% 2.11/1.60  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.11/1.63  
% 2.11/1.63  Inference rules
% 2.11/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.11/1.63  #Ref     : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Sup     : 2
% 2.11/1.63  #Fact    : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Define  : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Split   : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Chain   : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Close   : 0
% 2.11/1.63  
% 2.11/1.63  Ordering : KBO
% 2.11/1.63  
% 2.11/1.63  Simplification rules
% 2.11/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.11/1.63  #Subsume      : 4
% 2.11/1.63  #Demod        : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.11/1.63  #SimpNegUnit  : 3
% 2.11/1.63  #BackRed      : 1
% 2.11/1.63  
% 2.11/1.63  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.11/1.63  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.11/1.63  
% 2.11/1.63  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.11/1.63  ----------------------
% 2.11/1.63  Preprocessing        : 0.40
% 2.11/1.63  Parsing              : 0.23
% 2.11/1.63  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.11/1.63  Main loop            : 0.15
% 2.11/1.63  Inferencing          : 0.08
% 2.11/1.63  Reduction            : 0.02
% 2.11/1.63  Demodulation         : 0.01
% 2.11/1.63  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.11/1.63  Subsumption          : 0.03
% 2.11/1.63  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  Total                : 0.60
% 2.11/1.63  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.11/1.63  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------