TSTP Solution File: SYN979+1 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n026.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 06:06:44 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    :    8 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   42 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   12 (   5 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   41 (   7   ~;   4   |;  22   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   8  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   15 (   6 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   16 (   6 sgn   8   !;   4   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2] :
    ? [X3,X4] :
      ( ( ( q(X3)
         => p(X3,X1) )
        & q(X1)
        & q(X2)
        & ( r(X4)
         => p(X2,X4) )
        & r(X1)
        & r(X2)
        & ( s(X1)
         => p(X3,X4) )
        & s(X1) )
     => p(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',prove_this) ).

fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2] :
      ? [X3,X4] :
        ( ( ( q(X3)
           => p(X3,X1) )
          & q(X1)
          & q(X2)
          & ( r(X4)
           => p(X2,X4) )
          & r(X1)
          & r(X2)
          & ( s(X1)
           => p(X3,X4) )
          & s(X1) )
       => p(X1,X2) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ! [X7,X8,X7,X8] :
      ( ( ~ q(X7)
        | p(X7,esk1_0) )
      & q(esk1_0)
      & q(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ r(X8)
        | p(esk2_0,X8) )
      & r(esk1_0)
      & r(esk2_0)
      & ( ~ s(esk1_0)
        | p(X7,X8) )
      & s(esk1_0)
      & ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
    inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( p(X1,X2)
    | ~ s(esk1_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    s(esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ p(esk1_0,esk2_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    p(X1,X2),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11  % Problem  : SYN979+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.03/0.12  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.32  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.32  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.32  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.32  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.32  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.32  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.12/0.32  % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 01:52:42 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.32  % 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             : 8
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object clause steps            : 5
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object formula steps           : 3
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object conjectures             : 8
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 5
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 3
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 1
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object generating inferences   : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 4
% 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                      : 9
% 0.22/1.40  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 9
% 0.22/1.40  # Processed clauses                    : 12
% 0.22/1.40  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # ...remaining for further processing  : 12
% 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                    : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Backward-rewritten                   : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # Generated clauses                    : 4
% 0.22/1.40  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 5
% 0.22/1.40  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Paramodulations                      : 4
% 0.22/1.40  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.22/1.40  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 6
% 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   : 6
% 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 : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # BW rewrite match successes           : 6
% 0.22/1.40  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.22/1.40  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 464
% 0.22/1.40  
% 0.22/1.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40  # User time                : 0.011 s
% 0.22/1.40  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.22/1.40  # Total time               : 0.014 s
% 0.22/1.40  # Maximum resident set size: 2768 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------