TSTP Solution File: CAT005-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : CAT005-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% Computer : n021.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 : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Aug 30 18:18:50 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.49s
% Output : Proof 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : CAT005-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 00:10:12 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.49 Command-line arguments: --set-join --lhs-weight 1 --no-flatten-goal --complete-subsets --goal-heuristic
% 0.21/0.49
% 0.21/0.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.49
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.50 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 0.21/0.50 fof(ad_defined, hypothesis, defined(a, d)).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(associative_property2, axiom, ![X, Y, Z, Xy]: (~product(X, Y, Xy) | (~defined(Xy, Z) | defined(Y, Z)))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(composition_is_well_defined, axiom, ![W, X2, Y2, Z2]: (~product(X2, Y2, Z2) | (~product(X2, Y2, W) | Z2=W))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(d_is_identity_map, hypothesis, identity_map(d)).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(domain_is_an_identity_map, axiom, ![X2]: identity_map(domain(X2))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(identity1, axiom, ![X2, Y2]: (~defined(X2, Y2) | (~identity_map(X2) | product(X2, Y2, Y2)))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(identity2, axiom, ![X2, Y2]: (~defined(X2, Y2) | (~identity_map(Y2) | product(X2, Y2, X2)))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(mapping_from_x_to_its_domain, axiom, ![X2]: defined(X2, domain(X2))).
% 0.21/0.50 fof(prove_domain_of_a_is_d, negated_conjecture, domain(a)!=d).
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 0.21/0.50 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 0.21/0.50 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 0.21/0.50 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 0.21/0.50 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 0.21/0.50 variables of u and v.
% 0.21/0.50 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 0.21/0.50 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 1 (d_is_identity_map): identity_map(d) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 2 (domain_is_an_identity_map): identity_map(domain(X)) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 3 (ad_defined): defined(a, d) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 4 (mapping_from_x_to_its_domain): defined(X, domain(X)) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 5 (composition_is_well_defined): fresh(X, X, Y, Z) = Z.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 6 (associative_property2): fresh15(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 7 (identity1): fresh6(X, X, Y, Z) = product(Y, Z, Z).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 8 (identity1): fresh5(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 9 (identity2): fresh4(X, X, Y, Z) = product(Y, Z, Y).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 10 (identity2): fresh3(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 11 (associative_property2): fresh17(X, X, Y, Z, W) = defined(Y, W).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 12 (identity1): fresh6(identity_map(X), true, X, Y) = fresh5(defined(X, Y), true, X, Y).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 13 (identity2): fresh4(identity_map(X), true, Y, X) = fresh3(defined(Y, X), true, Y, X).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 14 (composition_is_well_defined): fresh2(X, X, Y, Z, W, V) = W.
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 15 (associative_property2): fresh17(product(X, Y, Z), true, Y, Z, W) = fresh15(defined(Z, W), true, Y, W).
% 0.21/0.50 Axiom 16 (composition_is_well_defined): fresh2(product(X, Y, Z), true, X, Y, W, Z) = fresh(product(X, Y, W), true, W, Z).
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 Lemma 17: defined(d, domain(a)) = true.
% 0.21/0.50 Proof:
% 0.21/0.50 defined(d, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 11 (associative_property2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(true, true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 10 (identity2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(fresh3(true, true, a, d), true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 3 (ad_defined) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(fresh3(defined(a, d), true, a, d), true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 13 (identity2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(fresh4(identity_map(d), true, a, d), true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 1 (d_is_identity_map) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(fresh4(true, true, a, d), true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 9 (identity2) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh17(product(a, d, a), true, d, a, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 15 (associative_property2) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh15(defined(a, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 4 (mapping_from_x_to_its_domain) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh15(true, true, d, domain(a))
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 6 (associative_property2) }
% 0.21/0.50 true
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 Goal 1 (prove_domain_of_a_is_d): domain(a) = d.
% 0.21/0.50 Proof:
% 0.21/0.50 domain(a)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 14 (composition_is_well_defined) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(true, true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 10 (identity2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(fresh3(true, true, d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by lemma 17 R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(fresh3(defined(d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 13 (identity2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(fresh4(identity_map(domain(a)), true, d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 2 (domain_is_an_identity_map) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(fresh4(true, true, d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 9 (identity2) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh2(product(d, domain(a), d), true, d, domain(a), domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 16 (composition_is_well_defined) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(product(d, domain(a), domain(a)), true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 7 (identity1) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(fresh6(true, true, d, domain(a)), true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 1 (d_is_identity_map) R->L }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(fresh6(identity_map(d), true, d, domain(a)), true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 12 (identity1) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(fresh5(defined(d, domain(a)), true, d, domain(a)), true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by lemma 17 }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(fresh5(true, true, d, domain(a)), true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 8 (identity1) }
% 0.21/0.50 fresh(true, true, domain(a), d)
% 0.21/0.50 = { by axiom 5 (composition_is_well_defined) }
% 0.21/0.50 d
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------