TSTP Solution File: SYN930+1 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : SYN930+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 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 : 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  : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 11:16:53 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 2.13s 1.56s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 2.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    5
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   23 (  11 unt;   4 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   32 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   23 (  10   ~;  12   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   0  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    5 (   3 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :    1 (   1   >;   0   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   2 prp; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   14 (;  14   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ p > #nlpp > c > #skF_2 > #skF_1

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(c,type,
    c: $o ).

tff(p,type,
    p: $i > $o ).

tff('#skF_2',type,
    '#skF_2': $i ).

tff('#skF_1',type,
    '#skF_1': $i ).

tff(f_35,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ( ! [X] :
          ( p(X)
          | c )
    <=> ( ! [X] : p(X)
        | c ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).

tff(c_2,plain,
    ~ c,
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_18,plain,
    ! [X_1,X_2] :
      ( p(X_1)
      | c
      | p(X_2) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_20,plain,
    ! [X_1,X_2] :
      ( p(X_1)
      | p(X_2) ),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_18]) ).

tff(c_24,plain,
    ! [X_2] : p(X_2),
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_20]) ).

tff(c_16,plain,
    ! [X_2] :
      ( ~ p('#skF_1')
      | c
      | p(X_2) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_19,plain,
    ! [X_2] :
      ( ~ p('#skF_1')
      | p(X_2) ),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_16]) ).

tff(c_23,plain,
    ~ p('#skF_1'),
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_19]) ).

tff(c_29,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_24,c_23]) ).

tff(c_30,plain,
    ! [X_1] : p(X_1),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_20]) ).

tff(c_35,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_30,c_23]) ).

tff(c_36,plain,
    ! [X_2] : p(X_2),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_19]) ).

tff(c_12,plain,
    ! [X_1] :
      ( c
      | p(X_1)
      | ~ p('#skF_2') ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_21,plain,
    ! [X_1] :
      ( p(X_1)
      | ~ p('#skF_2') ),
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_2,c_12]) ).

tff(c_22,plain,
    ~ p('#skF_2'),
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_21]) ).

tff(c_41,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_36,c_22]) ).

tff(c_42,plain,
    ! [X_1] : p(X_1),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_21]) ).

tff(c_10,plain,
    ( ~ p('#skF_1')
    | ~ p('#skF_2') ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_35]) ).

tff(c_47,plain,
    $false,
    inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_42,c_42,c_10]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : SYN930+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % 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
% 0.16/0.37  % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.37  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.37  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.37  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.16/0.37  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.16/0.37  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.16/0.37  % DateTime : Thu Aug  3 17:28:07 EDT 2023
% 0.16/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.13/1.56  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.13/1.56  
% 2.13/1.56  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.13/1.60  
% 2.13/1.60  Inference rules
% 2.13/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.13/1.60  #Ref     : 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Sup     : 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Fact    : 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Define  : 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Split   : 4
% 2.13/1.60  #Chain   : 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Close   : 0
% 2.13/1.60  
% 2.13/1.60  Ordering : KBO
% 2.13/1.60  
% 2.13/1.60  Simplification rules
% 2.13/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.13/1.60  #Subsume      : 3
% 2.13/1.60  #Demod        : 8
% 2.13/1.60  #Tautology    : 3
% 2.13/1.60  #SimpNegUnit  : 3
% 2.13/1.60  #BackRed      : 5
% 2.13/1.60  
% 2.13/1.60  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.13/1.60  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 2.13/1.60  
% 2.13/1.60  Timing (in seconds)
% 2.13/1.60  ----------------------
% 2.13/1.60  Preprocessing        : 0.38
% 2.13/1.60  Parsing              : 0.21
% 2.13/1.60  CNF conversion       : 0.02
% 2.13/1.60  Main loop            : 0.13
% 2.13/1.61  Inferencing          : 0.03
% 2.13/1.61  Reduction            : 0.03
% 2.13/1.61  Demodulation         : 0.02
% 2.13/1.61  BG Simplification    : 0.01
% 2.13/1.61  Subsumption          : 0.04
% 2.13/1.61  Abstraction          : 0.01
% 2.13/1.61  MUC search           : 0.00
% 2.13/1.61  Cooper               : 0.00
% 2.13/1.61  Total                : 0.57
% 2.13/1.61  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 2.13/1.61  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 2.13/1.61  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 2.13/1.61  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------