↑ Up

Prover9---2026-6A.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Prover9---2026-6A
% Problem  : GEO080+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : prover9 -casc 300 -f /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p

% Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Sun Sep 27 07:17:00 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.12s 0.40s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   14 (   8 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   34 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    7 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   35 (  15   ~;  12   |;   6   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   1  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :    8 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   1 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   24 (   0 sgn  18   !;   2   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(part_of_defn,axiom,
    ! [C,C1] :
      ( part_of(C1,C)
    <=> ! [P] :
          ( incident_c(P,C1)
         => incident_c(P,C) ) ),
    file('theBenchmark.p',part_of_defn) ).

fof(prove_reflexivity,conjecture,
    ! [C] : part_of(C,C),
    file('theBenchmark.p',prove_reflexivity) ).

fof(prove_reflexivity_neg,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [C] : part_of(C,C),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_reflexivity]) ).

fof(nnf_17,plain,
    ? [C] : ~ part_of(C,C),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[prove_reflexivity_neg]) ).

fof(sk_prove_reflexivity_neg,plain,
    ~ part_of(sK0,sK0),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa),new_symbols(skolem,[sK0]),skolemize(C,sK0)],[nnf_17]) ).

cnf(c_38,negated_conjecture,
    ~ part_of(sK0,sK0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[sk_prove_reflexivity_neg]) ).

fof(nnf_1,plain,
    ! [C,C1] :
      ( ( ? [P] :
            ( ~ incident_c(P,C)
            & incident_c(P,C1) )
        | part_of(C1,C) )
      & ( ! [X0] :
            ( incident_c(X0,C)
            | ~ incident_c(X0,C1) )
        | ~ part_of(C1,C) ) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[part_of_defn]) ).

fof(sk_part_of_defn_sk,plain,
    ! [C,C1] :
      ( ( ( ~ incident_c(sK1(C,C1),C)
          & incident_c(sK1(C,C1),C1) )
        | part_of(C1,C) )
      & ( ! [X0] :
            ( incident_c(X0,C)
            | ~ incident_c(X0,C1) )
        | ~ part_of(C1,C) ) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa),new_symbols(skolem,[sK1]),skolemize(P,sK1(C,C1))],[nnf_1]) ).

fof(sk_part_of_defn,plain,
    ( ! [VAR_0,VAR_1] :
        ( ~ incident_c(sK1(VAR_1,VAR_0),VAR_1)
        | part_of(VAR_0,VAR_1) )
    & ! [VAR_0,VAR_1] :
        ( incident_c(sK1(VAR_1,VAR_0),VAR_0)
        | part_of(VAR_0,VAR_1) )
    & ! [VAR_0,VAR_1,VAR_2] :
        ( incident_c(VAR_2,VAR_1)
        | ~ incident_c(VAR_2,VAR_0)
        | ~ part_of(VAR_0,VAR_1) ) ),
    inference(cnf_transformation,[status(thm)],[sk_part_of_defn_sk]) ).

cnf(c_68,plain,
    ( ~ incident_c(sK1(B,A),B)
    | part_of(A,B) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[sk_part_of_defn]) ).

cnf(c_69,plain,
    ( incident_c(sK1(B,A),A)
    | part_of(A,B) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[sk_part_of_defn]) ).

cnf(c_281,negated_conjecture,
    ~ incident_c(sK1(sK0,sK0),sK0),
    inference(resolve,[status(thm)],[c_68,c_38]) ).

cnf(c_287,negated_conjecture,
    incident_c(sK1(sK0,sK0),sK0),
    inference(resolve,[status(thm)],[c_69,c_38]) ).

cnf(c_286,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(resolve,[status(thm)],[c_281,c_287]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : GEO080+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.03  % Command  : prover9 -casc 300 -f /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.08/0.35  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.08/0.35  % DateTime : Fri Sep 25 12:43:50 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.08/0.35  % Prover9 (64) version 2026-6A, July 2026, CASC-J13.
% 0.08/0.35  % Process 3285288 was started by sandbox2 on n002,
% 0.08/0.35  % Fri Sep 25 12:43:50 2026
% 0.08/0.35  % The command was "/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/prover9 -casc 300 -f /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p".
% 0.12/0.36  
% 0.12/0.36  % From the command line: assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.12/0.40  
% 0.12/0.40  % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.12/0.40  
% 0.12/0.40  % Proof 1 at 0.02 (+ 0.01) seconds.
% 0.12/0.40  % Length of proof is 7.
% 0.12/0.40  % Level of proof is 3.
% 0.12/0.40  % Maximum clause weight is 8.000.
% 0.12/0.40  % Given clauses 39.
% 0.12/0.40  
% 0.12/0.40  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for theBenchmark
% See solution above
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------