TSTP Solution File: SYN372+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN372+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 : n002.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 11:10:39 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 1.92s 1.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 4 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 10 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 8 ( 4 ~; 1 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 2 ( 2 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 5 (; 3 !; 2 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ big_q > big_p > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
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(f_37,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X] :
( ? [Y] :
( big_p(Y)
=> big_q(X) )
=> ? [Y] :
( big_p(Y)
=> big_q(Y) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',x2123) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [Y_3] : big_p(Y_3),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [Y_3] : ~ big_q(Y_3),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
( ~ big_p('#skF_2')
| big_q('#skF_1') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_37]) ).
tff(c_7,plain,
~ big_p('#skF_2'),
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_4,c_6]) ).
tff(c_9,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_7]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14 % Problem : SYN372+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/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
% 0.16/0.36 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 17:32:16 EDT 2023
% 0.16/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 1.92/1.57 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.92/1.57
% 1.92/1.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.26/1.61
% 2.26/1.61 Inference rules
% 2.26/1.61 ----------------------
% 2.26/1.61 #Ref : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Sup : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Fact : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Define : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Split : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Chain : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Close : 0
% 2.26/1.61
% 2.26/1.61 Ordering : KBO
% 2.26/1.61
% 2.26/1.61 Simplification rules
% 2.26/1.61 ----------------------
% 2.26/1.61 #Subsume : 2
% 2.26/1.61 #Demod : 1
% 2.26/1.61 #Tautology : 0
% 2.26/1.61 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 2.26/1.61 #BackRed : 0
% 2.26/1.61
% 2.26/1.61 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.26/1.61 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.26/1.61
% 2.26/1.61 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.26/1.61 ----------------------
% 2.26/1.62 Preprocessing : 0.39
% 2.26/1.62 Parsing : 0.21
% 2.26/1.62 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.26/1.62 Main loop : 0.05
% 2.26/1.62 Inferencing : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.26/1.62 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.26/1.62 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.26/1.62 Subsumption : 0.02
% 2.26/1.62 Abstraction : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 Total : 0.51
% 2.26/1.62 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.26/1.62 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------