TSTP Solution File: SYN396+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SYN396+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n020.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 05:53:58 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 2 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 14 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 9 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 3 sgn 4 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(kalish203,conjecture,
( ~ ! [X1] : f(X1)
<=> ? [X2] : ~ f(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',kalish203) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ~ ! [X1] : f(X1)
<=> ? [X2] : ~ f(X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[kalish203]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X3,X4] :
( ( f(X3)
| f(X4) )
& ( ~ f(esk1_0)
| ~ f(esk2_0) ) ),
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)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( f(X1)
| f(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ f(esk2_0)
| ~ f(esk1_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
f(X1),
inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11 % Problem : SYN396+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n020.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 19:36:12 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 : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 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 : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 3
% 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 : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 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 : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 176
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.011 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2756 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------