%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SWV133+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n011.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 : Wed Jul 20 18:15:19 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 56 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 53 ( 13 ~; 7 |; 29 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(gauss_array_0003,conjecture,
( ( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',gauss_array_0003) ).
fof(transitivity_leq,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( leq(X1,X2)
& leq(X2,X3) )
=> leq(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',transitivity_leq) ).
fof(leq_gt1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( gt(X2,X1)
=> leq(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_gt1) ).
fof(gt_2_0,axiom,
gt(n2,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',gt_2_0) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[gauss_array_0003]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ leq(X4,X5)
| ~ leq(X5,X6)
| leq(X4,X6) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[transitivity_leq])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7))
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& ~ leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ gt(X4,X3)
| leq(X3,X4) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_gt1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( leq(X1,X2)
| ~ leq(X3,X2)
| ~ leq(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
leq(n2,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( leq(X1,X2)
| ~ gt(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
gt(n2,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[gt_2_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( leq(X1,pv1325)
| ~ leq(X1,n2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
leq(n0,n2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ leq(n0,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11 % Problem : SWV133+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.11 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.32 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.32 % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 04:30:20 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.39 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.39 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.39 # Preprocessing time : 0.018 s
% 0.22/1.39
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.39 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.39 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object total steps : 16
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object clause steps : 8
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object formula steps : 8
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object conjectures : 7
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object clause conjectures : 4
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 0.22/1.39 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.39 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.39 # Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.22/1.39 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 29
% 0.22/1.39 # Initial clauses : 68
% 0.22/1.39 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.22/1.39 # Initial clauses in saturation : 67
% 0.22/1.39 # Processed clauses : 116
% 0.22/1.39 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # ...subsumed : 4
% 0.22/1.39 # ...remaining for further processing : 112
% 0.22/1.39 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.22/1.39 # Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.22/1.39 # Generated clauses : 493
% 0.22/1.39 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 430
% 0.22/1.39 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.22/1.39 # Paramodulations : 486
% 0.22/1.39 # Factorizations : 7
% 0.22/1.39 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Current number of processed clauses : 108
% 0.22/1.39 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 59
% 0.22/1.39 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.22/1.39 # Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.22/1.39 # Non-unit-clauses : 40
% 0.22/1.39 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 359
% 0.22/1.39 # ...number of literals in the above : 1494
% 0.22/1.39 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.22/1.39 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 71
% 0.22/1.39 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.22/1.39 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.22/1.39 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 61
% 0.22/1.39 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # BW rewrite match attempts : 12
% 0.22/1.39 # BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.22/1.39 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.39 # Termbank termtop insertions : 7138
% 0.22/1.39
% 0.22/1.39 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.39 # User time : 0.028 s
% 0.22/1.39 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/1.39 # Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.22/1.39 # Maximum resident set size: 3436 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------