TSTP Solution File: SYN957+1 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYN957+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/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 : n008.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 11:16:59 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.03s 1.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.03s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 3 unt; 2 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 9 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 9 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 0 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 2 ( 1 >; 1 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 (; 3 !; 1 ?; 0 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ a > #nlpp > #skF_1
%Foreground sorts:
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(a,type,
a: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $i ).
tff(f_32,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ ? [Y] :
! [X] :
( a(X,Y)
<=> ~ a(X,X) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
tff(c_4,plain,
! [X_2] :
( a(X_2,'#skF_1')
| a(X_2,X_2) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).
tff(c_17,plain,
a('#skF_1','#skF_1'),
inference(factorization,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_4]) ).
tff(c_21,plain,
! [X_4] :
( ~ a(X_4,X_4)
| ~ a(X_4,'#skF_1') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_32]) ).
tff(c_23,plain,
~ a('#skF_1','#skF_1'),
inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_17,c_21]) ).
tff(c_30,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_17,c_23]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SYN957+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % 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
% 0.15/0.36 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 17:20:33 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 2.03/1.53 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.03/1.54
% 2.03/1.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.03/1.57
% 2.03/1.57 Inference rules
% 2.03/1.57 ----------------------
% 2.03/1.57 #Ref : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Sup : 2
% 2.03/1.57 #Fact : 2
% 2.03/1.57 #Define : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Split : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Chain : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Close : 0
% 2.03/1.57
% 2.03/1.57 Ordering : KBO
% 2.03/1.57
% 2.03/1.57 Simplification rules
% 2.03/1.57 ----------------------
% 2.03/1.57 #Subsume : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Demod : 2
% 2.03/1.57 #Tautology : 1
% 2.03/1.57 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.03/1.57 #BackRed : 0
% 2.03/1.57
% 2.03/1.57 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.03/1.57 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.03/1.57
% 2.03/1.57 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.03/1.57 ----------------------
% 2.03/1.57 Preprocessing : 0.38
% 2.03/1.58 Parsing : 0.21
% 2.03/1.58 CNF conversion : 0.02
% 2.03/1.58 Main loop : 0.13
% 2.03/1.58 Inferencing : 0.07
% 2.03/1.58 Reduction : 0.02
% 2.03/1.58 Demodulation : 0.01
% 2.03/1.58 BG Simplification : 0.01
% 2.03/1.58 Subsumption : 0.03
% 2.03/1.58 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.03/1.58 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.03/1.58 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.03/1.58 Total : 0.56
% 2.03/1.58 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.03/1.58 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.03/1.58 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.03/1.58 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------