%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SPASS---3.9
% Problem  : CAT007-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : run_spass %d %s

% Computer : n024.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 : Fri Jul 15 00:07:29 EDT 2022

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.41s
% Output   : Refutation 0.14s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12  % Problem  : CAT007-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.11/0.13  % Command  : run_spass %d %s
% 0.14/0.34  % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.14/0.34  % DateTime : Sun May 29 16:08:21 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.14/0.41  
% 0.14/0.41  SPASS V 3.9 
% 0.14/0.41  SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.14/0.41  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.41  Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 
% 0.14/0.41  SPASS derived 1 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 0 splits and kept 12 clauses.
% 0.14/0.41  SPASS allocated 63087 KBytes.
% 0.14/0.41  SPASS spent	0:00:00.06 on the problem.
% 0.14/0.41  		0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.14/0.41  		0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.14/0.41  		0:00:00.00 for inferences.
% 0.14/0.41  		0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.14/0.41  		0:00:00.00 for the reduction.
% 0.14/0.41  
% 0.14/0.41  
% 0.14/0.41  Here is a proof with depth 1, length 6 :
% 0.14/0.41  % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.14/0.41  5[0:Inp] || there_exists(domain__dfg(u)) equalish(domain__dfg(u),codomain(v)) -> there_exists(compose(u,v))*.
% 0.14/0.41  9[0:Inp] ||  -> there_exists(domain__dfg(c2))*.
% 0.14/0.41  11[0:Inp] ||  -> equalish(domain__dfg(c2),codomain(c1))*l.
% 0.14/0.41  12[0:Inp] || there_exists(compose(c2,c1))* -> .
% 0.14/0.41  13[0:Res:5.2,12.0] || there_exists(domain__dfg(c2))* equalish(domain__dfg(c2),codomain(c1)) -> .
% 0.14/0.41  15[0:MRR:13.0,13.1,9.0,11.0] ||  -> .
% 0.14/0.41  % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.14/0.41  Formulae used in the proof : domain_codomain_composition2 domain_of_c2_exists domain_of_c2_equals_codomain_of_c1 prove_c1_c2_is_defined
% 0.14/0.41  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------