TSTP Solution File: SYO901_11 by Beagle---0.9.51
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem : SYO901_11 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.2.0.
% 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 : n009.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 11:18:37 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.67s 1.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.67s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 9 unt; 6 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 39 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 30 ( 12 ~; 11 |; 0 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of FOOLs : 4 ( 4 fml; 0 var)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 2 ( 2 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 (; 20 !; 0 ?; 20 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ q > p > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_1 > #skF_3
%Foreground sorts:
tff($ki_world,type,
$ki_world: $tType ).
%Background operators:
%Foreground operators:
tff(p,type,
p: $ki_world > $o ).
tff(q,type,
q: $ki_world > $o ).
tff('#skF_2',type,
'#skF_2': $ki_world ).
tff('#skF_1',type,
'#skF_1': $ki_world ).
tff('#skF_3',type,
'#skF_3': $ki_world ).
tff(f_30,axiom,
! [W: $ki_world,V: $ki_world] : $ki_accessible(W,V),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mrel_universal) ).
tff(f_50,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [W: $ki_world] :
( $ki_accessible($ki_local_world,W)
=> ( p(W)
<=> q(W) ) )
=> ! [W: $ki_world] :
( $ki_accessible($ki_local_world,W)
=> ( ! [W0: $ki_world] :
( $ki_accessible(W,W0)
=> p(W0) )
<=> ! [W0: $ki_world] :
( $ki_accessible(W,W0)
=> q(W0) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',verify) ).
tff(c_2,plain,
! [W_1: $ki_world,V_2: $ki_world] : $ki_accessible(W_1,V_2),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_30]) ).
tff(c_22,plain,
! [W0_8: $ki_world,W0_9: $ki_world] :
( p(W0_8)
| ~ $ki_accessible('#skF_1',W0_8)
| q(W0_9)
| ~ $ki_accessible('#skF_1',W0_9) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_50]) ).
tff(c_44,plain,
! [W0_8: $ki_world,W0_9: $ki_world] :
( p(W0_8)
| q(W0_9) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_2,c_22]) ).
tff(c_46,plain,
! [W0_9: $ki_world] : q(W0_9),
inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_44]) ).
tff(c_24,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] :
( p(W_3)
| ~ q(W_3)
| ~ $ki_accessible($ki_local_world,W_3) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_50]) ).
tff(c_30,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] :
( p(W_3)
| ~ q(W_3) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_24]) ).
tff(c_49,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] : p(W_3),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_46,c_30]) ).
tff(c_6,plain,
( ~ q('#skF_2')
| ~ p('#skF_3') ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_50]) ).
tff(c_56,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_49,c_46,c_6]) ).
tff(c_57,plain,
! [W0_8: $ki_world] : p(W0_8),
inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_44]) ).
tff(c_26,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] :
( q(W_3)
| ~ p(W_3)
| ~ $ki_accessible($ki_local_world,W_3) ),
inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_50]) ).
tff(c_33,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] :
( q(W_3)
| ~ p(W_3) ),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_2,c_26]) ).
tff(c_65,plain,
! [W_3: $ki_world] : q(W_3),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_57,c_33]) ).
tff(c_61,plain,
~ q('#skF_2'),
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_57,c_6]) ).
tff(c_68,plain,
$false,
inference(demodulation,[status(thm),theory(equality)],[c_65,c_61]) ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SYO901_11 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v8.2.0.
% 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
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 3 15:43:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 2.67/1.61 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.67/1.61
% 2.67/1.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 2.67/1.65
% 2.67/1.65 Inference rules
% 2.67/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.67/1.65 #Ref : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Sup : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Fact : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Define : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Split : 1
% 2.67/1.65 #Chain : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Close : 0
% 2.67/1.65
% 2.67/1.65 Ordering : KBO
% 2.67/1.65
% 2.67/1.65 Simplification rules
% 2.67/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.67/1.65 #Subsume : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Demod : 28
% 2.67/1.65 #Tautology : 10
% 2.67/1.65 #SimpNegUnit : 0
% 2.67/1.65 #BackRed : 1
% 2.67/1.65
% 2.67/1.65 #Partial instantiations: 0
% 2.67/1.65 #Strategies tried : 1
% 2.67/1.65
% 2.67/1.65 Timing (in seconds)
% 2.67/1.65 ----------------------
% 2.67/1.65 Preprocessing : 0.46
% 2.67/1.65 Parsing : 0.27
% 2.67/1.65 CNF conversion : 0.03
% 2.81/1.65 Main loop : 0.14
% 2.81/1.65 Inferencing : 0.03
% 2.81/1.65 Reduction : 0.04
% 2.81/1.65 Demodulation : 0.03
% 2.81/1.65 BG Simplification : 0.02
% 2.81/1.65 Subsumption : 0.04
% 2.81/1.65 Abstraction : 0.01
% 2.81/1.65 MUC search : 0.00
% 2.81/1.65 Cooper : 0.00
% 2.81/1.65 Total : 0.65
% 2.81/1.65 Index Insertion : 0.00
% 2.81/1.65 Index Deletion : 0.00
% 2.81/1.65 Index Matching : 0.00
% 2.81/1.65 BG Taut test : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------