TSTP Solution File: SYN394+1 by SInE---0.4
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SInE---0.4
% Problem : SYN394+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : Source/sine.py -e eprover -t %d %s
% Computer : art04.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 2018MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Sun Dec 26 13:19:27 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 0.16s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 32 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 31 ( 11 ~; 6 |; 8 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 2 sgn 14 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(1,conjecture,
( ! [X1] :
( f(X1)
=> g(X1) )
=> ( ! [X2] : f(X2)
=> ! [X3] : g(X3) ) ),
file('/tmp/tmpt01uem/sel_SYN394+1.p_1',kalish201) ).
fof(2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X1] :
( f(X1)
=> g(X1) )
=> ( ! [X2] : f(X2)
=> ! [X3] : g(X3) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[1]) ).
fof(3,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X1] :
( ~ f(X1)
| g(X1) )
& ! [X2] : f(X2)
& ? [X3] : ~ g(X3) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[2]) ).
fof(4,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X4] :
( ~ f(X4)
| g(X4) )
& ! [X5] : f(X5)
& ? [X6] : ~ g(X6) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[3]) ).
fof(5,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X4] :
( ~ f(X4)
| g(X4) )
& ! [X5] : f(X5)
& ~ g(esk1_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[4]) ).
fof(6,negated_conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( f(X5)
& ~ g(esk1_0)
& ( ~ f(X4)
| g(X4) ) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[5]) ).
cnf(7,negated_conjecture,
( g(X1)
| ~ f(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).
cnf(8,negated_conjecture,
~ g(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).
cnf(9,negated_conjecture,
f(X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).
cnf(10,negated_conjecture,
( g(X1)
| $false ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[7,9,theory(equality)]),
[unfolding] ).
cnf(11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[8,10,theory(equality)]),
[unfolding] ).
cnf(12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
11,
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% % SZS status Started for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN394+1.p
% --creating new selector for []
% -running prover on /tmp/tmpt01uem/sel_SYN394+1.p_1 with time limit 29
% -prover status Theorem
% Problem SYN394+1.p solved in phase 0.
% % SZS status Theorem for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN394+1.p
% % SZS status Ended for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN394+1.p
% Solved 1 out of 1.
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% See solution above
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------