%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : CSR066+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 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 : Fri Jul 15 02:47:19 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 9.92s 3.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.92s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 19 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 0 equ; 18 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_2043,negated_conjecture,
( ~ tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
| ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_2043) ).
cnf(i_0_1583,plain,
( tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
| ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_1583) ).
cnf(i_0_328,plain,
( tptp_8_271(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),X1)
| ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_328) ).
cnf(i_0_131,plain,
shavingrazor_manual(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_131) ).
cnf(i_0_329,plain,
( isa(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,X2,X3,X4),X3)
| ~ isa(X1,X4)
| ~ relationexistsall(X2,X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_329) ).
cnf(i_0_330,plain,
relationexistsall(c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_330) ).
cnf(i_0_1582,plain,
( isa(X1,c_shavingrazor_manual)
| ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-i6nd0tsm/input.p',i_0_1582) ).
cnf(c_0_2051,negated_conjecture,
( ~ tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
| ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual) ),
i_0_2043 ).
cnf(c_0_2052,plain,
( tptpcol_16_25972(X1)
| ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
i_0_1583 ).
cnf(c_0_2053,negated_conjecture,
( ~ tptp_8_271(X1,c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual)
| ~ isa(X1,c_tptpcol_16_25972) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2051,c_0_2052]) ).
cnf(c_0_2054,plain,
( tptp_8_271(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),X1)
| ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
i_0_328 ).
cnf(c_0_2055,plain,
shavingrazor_manual(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual),
i_0_131 ).
cnf(c_0_2056,plain,
( isa(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,X2,X3,X4),X3)
| ~ isa(X1,X4)
| ~ relationexistsall(X2,X3,X4) ),
i_0_329 ).
cnf(c_0_2057,plain,
relationexistsall(c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),
i_0_330 ).
cnf(c_0_2058,plain,
( isa(X1,c_shavingrazor_manual)
| ~ shavingrazor_manual(X1) ),
i_0_1582 ).
cnf(c_0_2059,plain,
~ isa(f_relationexistsallfn(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),c_tptpcol_16_25972),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2053,c_0_2054]),c_0_2055])]) ).
cnf(c_0_2060,plain,
( isa(f_relationexistsallfn(X1,c_tptp_8_271,c_tptpcol_16_25972,c_shavingrazor_manual),c_tptpcol_16_25972)
| ~ isa(X1,c_shavingrazor_manual) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2056,c_0_2057]) ).
cnf(c_0_2061,plain,
isa(c_theprototypicalshavingrazor_manual,c_shavingrazor_manual),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2058,c_0_2055]) ).
cnf(c_0_2062,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2059,c_0_2060]),c_0_2061])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.11 % Problem : CSR066+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.11/0.12 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.11/0.31 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.31 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.31 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.31 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.31 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.31 % DateTime : Sat Jun 11 05:08:36 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.31 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.42 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.83/1.01 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.83/1.01 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.83/1.01 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.83/1.01 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 9.92/3.45 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y:
% 9.92/3.45 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 9.92/3.45 # Preprocessing time : 0.039 s
% 9.92/3.45
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof found!
% 9.92/3.45 # SZS status Theorem
% 9.92/3.45 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object total steps : 19
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object clause steps : 12
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object conjectures : 3
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object formula conjectures : 1
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object initial clauses used : 7
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object initial formulas used : 7
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object generating inferences : 5
% 9.92/3.45 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 9.92/3.45 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 9.92/3.45 # Parsed axioms : 2043
% 9.92/3.45 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Initial clauses : 2043
% 9.92/3.45 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Initial clauses in saturation : 2043
% 9.92/3.45 # Processed clauses : 2448
% 9.92/3.45 # ...of these trivial : 215
% 9.92/3.45 # ...subsumed : 37
% 9.92/3.45 # ...remaining for further processing : 2196
% 9.92/3.45 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 9.92/3.45 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Backward-subsumed : 6
% 9.92/3.45 # Backward-rewritten : 6
% 9.92/3.45 # Generated clauses : 7167
% 9.92/3.45 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 4489
% 9.92/3.45 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 4
% 9.92/3.45 # Paramodulations : 7165
% 9.92/3.45 # Factorizations : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Equation resolutions : 2
% 9.92/3.45 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Current number of processed clauses : 2182
% 9.92/3.45 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 1933
% 9.92/3.45 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Negative unit clauses : 17
% 9.92/3.45 # Non-unit-clauses : 232
% 9.92/3.45 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4080
% 9.92/3.45 # ...number of literals in the above : 6613
% 9.92/3.45 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Current number of archived clauses : 12
% 9.92/3.45 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10225
% 9.92/3.45 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7147
% 9.92/3.45 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 46
% 9.92/3.45 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2372
% 9.92/3.45 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # BW rewrite match attempts : 23228
% 9.92/3.45 # BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 9.92/3.45 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Condensation successes : 0
% 9.92/3.45 # Termbank termtop insertions : 101057
% 9.92/3.45
% 9.92/3.45 # -------------------------------------------------
% 9.92/3.45 # User time : 0.110 s
% 9.92/3.45 # System time : 0.007 s
% 9.92/3.45 # Total time : 0.117 s
% 9.92/3.45 # ...preprocessing : 0.039 s
% 9.92/3.45 # ...main loop : 0.077 s
% 9.92/3.45 # Maximum resident set size: 15792 pages
% 9.92/3.45
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------