%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET991+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n017.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 : Tue Jul 19 00:55:55 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 1.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 66 ( 15 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 32 ( 5 avg)
% Number of connectives : 88 ( 34 ~; 35 |; 12 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 18 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 2 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 2 sgn 14 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t12_funct_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( relation(X2)
& function(X2) )
=> ( in(X1,relation_dom(X2))
=> in(apply(X2,X1),relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t12_funct_1) ).
fof(d5_funct_1,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ( relation(X1)
& function(X1) )
=> ! [X2] :
( X2 = relation_rng(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> ? [X4] :
( in(X4,relation_dom(X1))
& X3 = apply(X1,X4) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d5_funct_1) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( relation(X2)
& function(X2) )
=> ( in(X1,relation_dom(X2))
=> in(apply(X2,X1),relation_rng(X2)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t12_funct_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X7,X9,X6,X11] :
( ( in(esk3_3(X5,X6,X7),relation_dom(X5))
| ~ in(X7,X6)
| X6 != relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) )
& ( X7 = apply(X5,esk3_3(X5,X6,X7))
| ~ in(X7,X6)
| X6 != relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) )
& ( ~ in(X9,relation_dom(X5))
| X7 != apply(X5,X9)
| in(X7,X6)
| X6 != relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) )
& ( ~ in(esk4_2(X5,X6),X6)
| ~ in(X11,relation_dom(X5))
| esk4_2(X5,X6) != apply(X5,X11)
| X6 = relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) )
& ( in(esk5_2(X5,X6),relation_dom(X5))
| in(esk4_2(X5,X6),X6)
| X6 = relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) )
& ( esk4_2(X5,X6) = apply(X5,esk5_2(X5,X6))
| in(esk4_2(X5,X6),X6)
| X6 = relation_rng(X5)
| ~ relation(X5)
| ~ function(X5) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d5_funct_1])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( relation(esk2_0)
& function(esk2_0)
& in(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk2_0))
& ~ in(apply(esk2_0,esk1_0),relation_rng(esk2_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( in(X3,X2)
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1)
| X2 != relation_rng(X1)
| X3 != apply(X1,X4)
| ~ in(X4,relation_dom(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ in(apply(esk2_0,esk1_0),relation_rng(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( in(apply(X1,X2),X3)
| X3 != relation_rng(X1)
| ~ in(X2,relation_dom(X1))
| ~ function(X1)
| ~ relation(X1) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,relation_dom(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
function(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
relation(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.09/0.13 % Problem : SET991+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.09/0.14 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.36 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.36 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 04:33:18 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.26/1.44 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.26/1.44 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.26/1.44 # Preprocessing time : 0.016 s
% 0.26/1.44
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof found!
% 0.26/1.44 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/1.44 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object total steps : 12
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object clause steps : 7
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object conjectures : 8
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object clause conjectures : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.26/1.44 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.26/1.44 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.26/1.44 # Parsed axioms : 31
% 0.26/1.44 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.26/1.44 # Initial clauses : 39
% 0.26/1.44 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Initial clauses in saturation : 39
% 0.26/1.44 # Processed clauses : 86
% 0.26/1.44 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # ...subsumed : 18
% 0.26/1.44 # ...remaining for further processing : 68
% 0.26/1.44 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.26/1.44 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Generated clauses : 108
% 0.26/1.44 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 90
% 0.26/1.44 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Paramodulations : 106
% 0.26/1.44 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.26/1.44 # Current number of processed clauses : 63
% 0.26/1.44 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.26/1.44 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.26/1.44 # Non-unit-clauses : 42
% 0.26/1.44 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 36
% 0.26/1.44 # ...number of literals in the above : 163
% 0.26/1.44 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.26/1.44 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 299
% 0.26/1.44 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 267
% 0.26/1.44 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 14
% 0.26/1.44 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 22
% 0.26/1.44 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.26/1.44 # BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.26/1.44 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/1.44 # Termbank termtop insertions : 3273
% 0.26/1.44
% 0.26/1.44 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/1.44 # User time : 0.021 s
% 0.26/1.44 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.26/1.44 # Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.26/1.44 # Maximum resident set size: 3016 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------