%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SInE---0.4
% Problem : SYN369+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : Source/sine.py -e eprover -t %d %s
% Computer : art02.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 2018MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Sun Dec 26 13:17:41 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 0.16s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 19 ( 6 ~; 7 |; 4 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 con; 1-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 34 ( 4 sgn 24 !; 4 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(1,conjecture,
( ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( big_p(X1,X2)
| big_p(X2,X3) )
=> ? [X4] :
! [X5] : big_p(X4,X5) ),
file('/tmp/tmp7HBRT2/sel_SYN369+1.p_1',x2120) ).
fof(2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( big_p(X1,X2)
| big_p(X2,X3) )
=> ? [X4] :
! [X5] : big_p(X4,X5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[1]) ).
fof(3,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( big_p(X1,X2)
| big_p(X2,X3) )
& ! [X4] :
? [X5] : ~ big_p(X4,X5) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[2]) ).
fof(4,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X6,X7,X8] :
( big_p(X6,X7)
| big_p(X7,X8) )
& ! [X9] :
? [X10] : ~ big_p(X9,X10) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[3]) ).
fof(5,negated_conjecture,
( ! [X6,X7,X8] :
( big_p(X6,X7)
| big_p(X7,X8) )
& ! [X9] : ~ big_p(X9,esk1_1(X9)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[4]) ).
fof(6,negated_conjecture,
! [X6,X7,X8,X9] :
( ~ big_p(X9,esk1_1(X9))
& ( big_p(X6,X7)
| big_p(X7,X8) ) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[5]) ).
cnf(7,negated_conjecture,
( big_p(X1,X2)
| big_p(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).
cnf(8,negated_conjecture,
~ big_p(X1,esk1_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[6]) ).
cnf(11,negated_conjecture,
big_p(X2,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[8,7,theory(equality)]) ).
cnf(13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[8,11,theory(equality)]) ).
cnf(14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[13,theory(equality)]) ).
cnf(15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
14,
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% % SZS status Started for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN369+1.p
% --creating new selector for []
% -running prover on /tmp/tmp7HBRT2/sel_SYN369+1.p_1 with time limit 29
% -prover status Theorem
% Problem SYN369+1.p solved in phase 0.
% % SZS status Theorem for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN369+1.p
% % SZS status Ended for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN369+1.p
% Solved 1 out of 1.
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% See solution above
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------