TSTP Solution File: SYN395+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN395+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 : n022.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 11:10:44 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.05s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.05s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 4 unt; 3 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 : 5 ( 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 : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 (; 4 !; 2 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ g > f > #nlpp > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i ).
tff(g,type,
g: $i > $o ).
tff(f,type,
f: $i > $o ).
tff(f_36,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X] :
( f(X)
=> g(X) )
=> ( ? [Y] : f(Y)
=> ? [Z] : g(Z) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',kalish202) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [Z_2] : ~ g(Z_2),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
! [X_1] :
( g(X_1)
| ~ f(X_1) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_7,plain,
! [X_1] : ~ f(X_1),
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_6]) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
f('#skF_1'),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_36]) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_7,c_4]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SYN395+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 : n022.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 17:06:18 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 2.05/1.40 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.05/1.41
% 2.05/1.41 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.05/1.45
% 2.05/1.45 Inference rules
% 2.05/1.45 ----------------------
% 2.05/1.45 #Ref : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Sup : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Fact : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Define : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Split : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Chain : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Close : 0
% 2.05/1.45
% 2.05/1.45 Ordering : KBO
% 2.05/1.45
% 2.05/1.45 Simplification rules
% 2.05/1.45 ----------------------
% 2.05/1.45 #Subsume : 2
% 2.05/1.45 #Demod : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Tautology : 0
% 2.05/1.45 #SimpNegUnit : 2
% 2.05/1.45 #BackRed : 0
% 2.05/1.45
% 2.05/1.45 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.05/1.45 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.05/1.45
% 2.05/1.45 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.05/1.45 ----------------------
% 2.05/1.45 Preprocessing : 0.37
% 2.05/1.45 Parsing : 0.20
% 2.05/1.45 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.05/1.45 Main loop : 0.06
% 2.05/1.45 Inferencing : 0.00
% 2.05/1.45 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.05/1.45 Demodulation : 0.02
% 2.05/1.45 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.05/1.45 Subsumption : 0.03
% 2.05/1.45 Abstraction : 0.00
% 2.05/1.45 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.05/1.45 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.05/1.45 Total : 0.48
% 2.05/1.46 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.05/1.46 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.05/1.46 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.05/1.46 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------