TSTP Solution File: SYN386+1 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : SYN386+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n009.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 05:53:51 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    8
%            Number of leaves      :    1
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (   7 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   48 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   10 (   3 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   49 (  15   ~;  11   |;  11   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;  12  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   18 (   5 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   68 (   6 sgn  32   !;  12   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(x2138,conjecture,
    ( ( ! [X1] :
        ? [X2] : big_f(X1,X2)
      & ? [X1] :
        ! [X3] :
        ? [X4] :
        ! [X5] :
          ( big_s(X4,X5)
         => big_d(X5,X1,X3) )
      & ! [X3] :
        ? [X6] :
        ! [X7,X8] :
          ( big_d(X7,X8,X6)
         => ! [X2,X9] :
              ( ( big_f(X7,X2)
                & big_f(X8,X9) )
             => big_d(X2,X9,X3) ) ) )
   => ? [X2] :
      ! [X3] :
      ? [X10] :
      ! [X5] :
        ( big_s(X10,X5)
       => ! [X9] :
            ( big_f(X5,X9)
           => big_d(X9,X2,X3) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',x2138) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ( ! [X1] :
          ? [X2] : big_f(X1,X2)
        & ? [X1] :
          ! [X3] :
          ? [X4] :
          ! [X5] :
            ( big_s(X4,X5)
           => big_d(X5,X1,X3) )
        & ! [X3] :
          ? [X6] :
          ! [X7,X8] :
            ( big_d(X7,X8,X6)
           => ! [X2,X9] :
                ( ( big_f(X7,X2)
                  & big_f(X8,X9) )
               => big_d(X2,X9,X3) ) ) )
     => ? [X2] :
        ! [X3] :
        ? [X10] :
        ! [X5] :
          ( big_s(X10,X5)
         => ! [X9] :
              ( big_f(X5,X9)
             => big_d(X9,X2,X3) ) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[x2138]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X11,X14,X16,X17,X19,X20,X21,X22,X23,X25] :
      ( big_f(X11,esk1_1(X11))
      & ( ~ big_s(esk3_1(X14),X16)
        | big_d(X16,esk2_0,X14) )
      & ( ~ big_d(X19,X20,esk4_1(X17))
        | ~ big_f(X19,X21)
        | ~ big_f(X20,X22)
        | big_d(X21,X22,X17) )
      & big_s(X25,esk6_2(X23,X25))
      & big_f(esk6_2(X23,X25),esk7_2(X23,X25))
      & ~ big_d(esk7_2(X23,X25),X23,esk5_1(X23)) ),
    inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( big_d(X1,esk2_0,X2)
    | ~ big_s(esk3_1(X2),X1) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    big_s(X1,esk6_2(X2,X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ( big_d(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ big_f(X4,X2)
    | ~ big_f(X5,X1)
    | ~ big_d(X5,X4,esk4_1(X3)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    big_d(esk6_2(X1,esk3_1(X2)),esk2_0,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( big_d(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ big_f(esk6_2(X4,esk3_1(esk4_1(X3))),X1)
    | ~ big_f(esk2_0,X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    big_f(esk6_2(X1,X2),esk7_2(X1,X2)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ big_d(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1,esk5_1(X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    ( big_d(esk7_2(X1,esk3_1(esk4_1(X2))),X3,X2)
    | ~ big_f(esk2_0,X3) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    ~ big_f(esk2_0,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    big_f(X1,esk1_1(X1)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : SYN386+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.07/0.12  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.12/0.33  % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 13:12:52 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.22/1.40  # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.40  # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.40  # Preprocessing time       : 0.013 s
% 0.22/1.40  
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.40  # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.40  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object total steps             : 14
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object clause steps            : 11
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object formula steps           : 3
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object conjectures             : 14
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 11
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 1
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object generating inferences   : 5
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40  # Parsed axioms                        : 1
% 0.22/1.40  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Initial clauses                      : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # Processed clauses                    : 11
% 0.22/1.40  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # ...remaining for further processing  : 11
% 0.22/1.40  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Generated clauses                    : 8
% 0.22/1.40  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 7
% 0.22/1.40  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Paramodulations                      : 8
% 0.22/1.40  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Current number of processed clauses  : 11
% 0.22/1.40  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 4
% 0.22/1.40  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.40  #    Negative unit clauses             : 2
% 0.22/1.40  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 5
% 0.22/1.40  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.22/1.40  # ...number of literals in the above   : 8
% 0.22/1.40  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.22/1.40  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 721
% 0.22/1.40  
% 0.22/1.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40  # User time                : 0.011 s
% 0.22/1.40  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.22/1.40  # Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.22/1.40  # Maximum resident set size: 2764 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------