TSTP Solution File: SYN568-1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN568-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% Computer : n029.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 11:11:19 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 5.56s 2.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 5.94s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 20
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 33 ( 12 unt; 13 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 28 ( 15 ~; 13 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 15 ( 10 >; 5 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 (; 19 !; 0 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ p3 > p2 > p11 > p10 > f4 > #nlpp > f9 > f8 > f7 > f6 > f5 > c14 > c13 > c12
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(c12,type,
c12: $i ).
tff(f7,type,
f7: $i > $i ).
tff(p2,type,
p2: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(c14,type,
c14: $i ).
tff(p11,type,
p11: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(f5,type,
f5: $i > $i ).
tff(f6,type,
f6: $i > $i ).
tff(p3,type,
p3: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(f9,type,
f9: $i > $i ).
tff(f4,type,
f4: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).
tff(f8,type,
f8: $i > $i ).
tff(p10,type,
p10: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff(c13,type,
c13: $i ).
tff(f_41,axiom,
~ p3(f6(f7(f8(c12))),f6(c12)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_33,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( p10(X4,X5)
| p11(X5,X4) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_27,axiom,
~ p11(f9(c13),f9(c14)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_29,axiom,
! [X16] : p11(f5(f6(c12)),f9(X16)),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_131,axiom,
! [X7,X6,X8] :
( p3(X7,f6(c12))
| p10(f4(X6,X7),f4(X8,X7))
| ~ p10(X6,X8)
| ~ p11(f5(f6(c12)),X6) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_113,axiom,
p11(f4(f9(c13),f6(f7(f8(c12)))),f4(f9(c14),f6(f7(f8(c12))))),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(f_39,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( ~ p10(X4,X5)
| ~ p11(X5,X4) ),
file(unknown,unknown) ).
tff(c_14,plain,
~ p3(f6(f7(f8(c12))),f6(c12)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_41]) ).
tff(c_49,plain,
! [X5_47,X4_48] :
( p11(X5_47,X4_48)
| p10(X4_48,X5_47) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_33]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
~ p11(f9(c13),f9(c14)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_27]) ).
tff(c_57,plain,
p10(f9(c14),f9(c13)),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_49,c_6]) ).
tff(c_8,plain,
! [X16_3] : p11(f5(f6(c12)),f9(X16_3)),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_29]) ).
tff(c_473,plain,
! [X6_145,X8_146,X7_147] :
( ~ p11(f5(f6(c12)),X6_145)
| ~ p10(X6_145,X8_146)
| p10(f4(X6_145,X7_147),f4(X8_146,X7_147))
| p3(X7_147,f6(c12)) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_131]) ).
tff(c_1906,plain,
! [X16_305,X8_306,X7_307] :
( ~ p10(f9(X16_305),X8_306)
| p10(f4(f9(X16_305),X7_307),f4(X8_306,X7_307))
| p3(X7_307,f6(c12)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_8,c_473]) ).
tff(c_36,plain,
p11(f4(f9(c13),f6(f7(f8(c12)))),f4(f9(c14),f6(f7(f8(c12))))),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_113]) ).
tff(c_12,plain,
! [X5_7,X4_6] :
( ~ p11(X5_7,X4_6)
| ~ p10(X4_6,X5_7) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_39]) ).
tff(c_428,plain,
~ p10(f4(f9(c14),f6(f7(f8(c12)))),f4(f9(c13),f6(f7(f8(c12))))),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_36,c_12]) ).
tff(c_1909,plain,
( ~ p10(f9(c14),f9(c13))
| p3(f6(f7(f8(c12))),f6(c12)) ),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_1906,c_428]) ).
tff(c_1918,plain,
p3(f6(f7(f8(c12))),f6(c12)),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_57,c_1909]) ).
tff(c_1920,plain,
$false,
inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_14,c_1918]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SYN568-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n029.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 17:44:22 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 5.56/2.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 5.56/2.47
% 5.56/2.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 5.94/2.50
% 5.94/2.50 Inference rules
% 5.94/2.50 ----------------------
% 5.94/2.50 #Ref : 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Sup : 568
% 5.94/2.50 #Fact : 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Define : 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Split : 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Chain : 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Close : 0
% 5.94/2.50
% 5.94/2.50 Ordering : KBO
% 5.94/2.50
% 5.94/2.50 Simplification rules
% 5.94/2.50 ----------------------
% 5.94/2.50 #Subsume : 55
% 5.94/2.50 #Demod : 9
% 5.94/2.50 #Tautology : 5
% 5.94/2.50 #SimpNegUnit : 1
% 5.94/2.50 #BackRed : 0
% 5.94/2.50
% 5.94/2.50 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 5.94/2.50 #Strategies tried : 1
% 5.94/2.50
% 5.94/2.50 Timing (in seconds)
% 5.94/2.50 ----------------------
% 5.94/2.50 Preprocessing : 0.50
% 5.94/2.50 Parsing : 0.28
% 5.94/2.50 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 5.94/2.50 Main loop : 0.84
% 5.94/2.50 Inferencing : 0.31
% 5.94/2.50 Reduction : 0.19
% 5.94/2.50 Demodulation : 0.12
% 5.94/2.50 BG Simplification : 0.03
% 5.94/2.50 Subsumption : 0.25
% 5.94/2.50 Abstraction : 0.03
% 5.94/2.50 MUC search : 0.00
% 5.94/2.50 Cooper : 0.00
% 5.94/2.50 Total : 1.39
% 5.94/2.50 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 5.94/2.50 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 5.94/2.50 Index Matching : 0.00
% 5.94/2.50 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------