TSTP Solution File: SYN062+1 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SYN062+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/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s

% Computer : n027.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 11:09:12 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 2.05s 1.62s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.75s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :   11
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   22 (   6 unt;   7 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   30 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   27 (  12   ~;   8   |;   3   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   4  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    6 (   6   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    7 (   6 usr;   1 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    1 (   1 usr;   1 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    7 (;   7   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ big_k > big_j > big_i > big_h > big_g > big_f > #nlpp > #skF_1

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tff(f_51,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X] :
        ( ( big_f(X)
          & big_k(X) )
       => big_j(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel32) ).

tff(f_44,axiom,
    ! [X] :
      ( big_k(X)
     => big_h(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel32_3) ).

tff(f_34,axiom,
    ! [X] :
      ( ( big_f(X)
        & ( big_g(X)
          | big_h(X) ) )
     => big_i(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel32_1) ).

tff(f_40,axiom,
    ! [X] :
      ( ( big_i(X)
        & big_h(X) )
     => big_j(X) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel32_2) ).

tff(c_14,plain,
    big_f('#skF_1'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_51]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    big_k('#skF_1'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_51]) ).

tff(c_15,plain,
    ! [X_4] :
      ( big_h(X_4)
      | ~ big_k(X_4) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_44]) ).

tff(c_19,plain,
    big_h('#skF_1'),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_12,c_15]) ).

tff(c_27,plain,
    ! [X_6] :
      ( ~ big_h(X_6)
      | big_i(X_6)
      | ~ big_f(X_6) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_34]) ).

tff(c_20,plain,
    ! [X_5] :
      ( big_j(X_5)
      | ~ big_h(X_5)
      | ~ big_i(X_5) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_40]) ).

tff(c_10,plain,
    ~ big_j('#skF_1'),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_51]) ).

tff(c_23,plain,
    ( ~ big_h('#skF_1')
    | ~ big_i('#skF_1') ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_20,c_10]) ).

tff(c_26,plain,
    ~ big_i('#skF_1'),
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_19,c_23]) ).

tff(c_30,plain,
    ( ~ big_h('#skF_1')
    | ~ big_f('#skF_1') ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_27,c_26]) ).

tff(c_34,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_14,c_19,c_30]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : SYN062+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14  % Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.35  % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.35  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 17:40:09 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.05/1.62  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.05/1.63  
% 2.05/1.63  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.75/1.67  
% 2.75/1.67  Inference rules
% 2.75/1.67  ----------------------
% 2.75/1.67  #Ref     : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Sup     : 3
% 2.75/1.67  #Fact    : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Define  : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Split   : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Chain   : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Close   : 0
% 2.75/1.67  
% 2.75/1.67  Ordering : KBO
% 2.75/1.67  
% 2.75/1.67  Simplification rules
% 2.75/1.67  ----------------------
% 2.75/1.67  #Subsume      : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Demod        : 3
% 2.75/1.67  #Tautology    : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #SimpNegUnit  : 0
% 2.75/1.67  #BackRed      : 0
% 2.75/1.67  
% 2.75/1.67  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.75/1.67  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.75/1.67  
% 2.75/1.67  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.75/1.67  ----------------------
% 2.75/1.67  Preprocessing        : 0.40
% 2.75/1.67  Parsing              : 0.22
% 2.75/1.67  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.75/1.68  Main loop            : 0.20
% 2.75/1.68  Inferencing          : 0.10
% 2.75/1.68  Reduction            : 0.04
% 2.75/1.68  Demodulation         : 0.04
% 2.75/1.68  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.75/1.68  Subsumption          : 0.03
% 2.75/1.68  Abstraction          : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  Total                : 0.66
% 2.75/1.68  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.75/1.68  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------