TSTP Solution File: SYO267^5 by Vampire---4.8
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Vampire---4.8
% Problem : SYO267^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -t %d %s
% Computer : n023.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 May 21 09:03:43 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.38s
% Output : Refutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : SYO267^5 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.04/0.15 % Command : vampire --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule file --schedule_file /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/quickGreedyProduceRating_steal_pow3.txt --cores 8 -m 12000 -t %d %s
% 0.15/0.35 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % DateTime : Mon May 20 10:45:53 EDT 2024
% 0.15/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.36 This is a TH0_THM_NEQ_NAR problem
% 0.15/0.36 Running vampire_ho --input_syntax tptp --proof tptp --output_axiom_names on --mode portfolio --schedule snake_tptp_hol --cores 8 -m 12000 -t 300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.38 % (24868)lrs+10_1:1_bet=on:cnfonf=off:fd=off:hud=5:inj=on:i=3:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/3Mi)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)lrs+1004_1:128_cond=on:e2e=on:sp=weighted_frequency:i=18:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/18Mi)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24862)lrs+10_1:1_c=on:cnfonf=conj_eager:fd=off:fe=off:kws=frequency:spb=intro:i=4:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/4Mi)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)First to succeed.
% 0.15/0.38 % (24866)lrs+1002_1:1_au=on:bd=off:e2e=on:sd=2:sos=on:ss=axioms:i=275:si=on:rtra=on_0 on theBenchmark for (3000ds/275Mi)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24868)Also succeeded, but the first one will report.
% 0.15/0.38 % (24862)Also succeeded, but the first one will report.
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Refutation found. Thanks to Tanya!
% 0.15/0.38 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38 thf(func_def_5, type, sK0: $i > $o).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(func_def_6, type, sK1: (($i > $i) > $o) > $i > $i).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(func_def_7, type, sK2: (($i > $i) > $o) > $i > $i).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(func_def_8, type, sK3: (($i > $i) > $o) > $i).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(func_def_11, type, ph5: !>[X0: $tType]:(X0)).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f20,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 $false),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(trivial_inequality_removal,[],[f19])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f19,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ($false = $true)),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(beta_eta_normalization,[],[f17])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f17,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 (((^[Y0 : $i > $i]: ($false)) @ (sK1 @ (^[Y0 : $i > $i]: ($false)))) = $true)),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(primitive_instantiation,[],[f14])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f14,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ( ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : (((X1 @ (sK1 @ X1)) = $true)) )),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(cnf_transformation,[],[f11])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f11,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : (((X1 @ (sK2 @ X1)) = $true) & ((X1 @ (sK1 @ X1)) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (sK1 @ X1 @ (sK2 @ X1 @ Y0)))) != $true) | (((sK0 @ (sK3 @ X1)) = $true) & ($true != (sK0 @ (sK1 @ X1 @ (sK3 @ X1)))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(skolemisation,[status(esa),new_symbols(skolem,[sK0,sK1,sK2,sK3])],[f7,f10,f9,f8])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f8,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ? [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X3) = $true) & ((X1 @ X2) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((X0 @ X4) = $true) & ((X0 @ (X2 @ X4)) != $true)))) => ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ? [X3 : $i > $i,X2 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X3) = $true) & ((X1 @ X2) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((sK0 @ X4) = $true) & ($true != (sK0 @ (X2 @ X4))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f9,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : (? [X3 : $i > $i,X2 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X3) = $true) & ((X1 @ X2) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((sK0 @ X4) = $true) & ($true != (sK0 @ (X2 @ X4)))))) => (((X1 @ (sK2 @ X1)) = $true) & ((X1 @ (sK1 @ X1)) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (sK1 @ X1 @ (sK2 @ X1 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((sK0 @ X4) = $true) & ((sK0 @ (sK1 @ X1 @ X4)) != $true)))))),
% 0.15/0.38 introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f10,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : (? [X4] : (((sK0 @ X4) = $true) & ((sK0 @ (sK1 @ X1 @ X4)) != $true)) => (((sK0 @ (sK3 @ X1)) = $true) & ($true != (sK0 @ (sK1 @ X1 @ (sK3 @ X1))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 introduced(choice_axiom,[])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f7,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ? [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X3) = $true) & ((X1 @ X2) = $true) & (((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((X0 @ X4) = $true) & ((X0 @ (X2 @ X4)) != $true))))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(flattening,[],[f6])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f6,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ? [X0 : $i > $o] : ! [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ? [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : ((((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) != $true) | ? [X4] : (((X0 @ X4) = $true) & ((X0 @ (X2 @ X4)) != $true))) & (((X1 @ X2) = $true) & ((X1 @ X3) = $true)))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(ennf_transformation,[],[f5])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f5,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ~! [X0 : $i > $o] : ? [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ! [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : ((((X1 @ X2) = $true) & ((X1 @ X3) = $true)) => (! [X4] : (((X0 @ X4) = $true) => ((X0 @ (X2 @ X4)) = $true)) & ((X1 @ (^[Y0 : $i]: (X2 @ (X3 @ Y0)))) = $true)))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(fool_elimination,[],[f4])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f4,plain,(
% 0.15/0.38 ~! [X0 : $i > $o] : ? [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ! [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X2) & (X1 @ X3)) => (! [X4] : ((X0 @ X4) => (X0 @ (X2 @ X4))) & (X1 @ (^[X5 : $i] : (X2 @ (X3 @ X5))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(rectify,[],[f2])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f2,negated_conjecture,(
% 0.15/0.38 ~! [X0 : $i > $o] : ? [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ! [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X2) & (X1 @ X3)) => (! [X5] : ((X0 @ X5) => (X0 @ (X2 @ X5))) & (X1 @ (^[X4 : $i] : (X2 @ (X3 @ X4))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 inference(negated_conjecture,[],[f1])).
% 0.15/0.38 thf(f1,conjecture,(
% 0.15/0.38 ! [X0 : $i > $o] : ? [X1 : ($i > $i) > $o] : ! [X2 : $i > $i,X3 : $i > $i] : (((X1 @ X2) & (X1 @ X3)) => (! [X5] : ((X0 @ X5) => (X0 @ (X2 @ X5))) & (X1 @ (^[X4 : $i] : (X2 @ (X3 @ X4))))))),
% 0.15/0.38 file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cTHM111)).
% 0.15/0.38 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Version: Vampire 4.8 HO - Sledgehammer schedules (2023-10-19)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Termination reason: Refutation
% 0.15/0.38
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Memory used [KB]: 5500
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Time elapsed: 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)Instructions burned: 2 (million)
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38 % (24867)------------------------------
% 0.15/0.38 % (24860)Success in time 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.38 % Vampire---4.8 exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------