TSTP Solution File: KRS099+1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : KRS099+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n020.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 : Sun Jul 17 03:29:45 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.68s 0.88s
% Output : Refutation 0.68s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : KRS099+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Tue Jun 7 09:07:36 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.12/0.37 The process was started by sandbox2 on n020.cluster.edu,
% 0.12/0.37 Tue Jun 7 09:07:36 2022
% 0.12/0.37 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 23079.
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.12/0.37 set(auto).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.12/0.37 clear(print_given).
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 formula_list(usable).
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=1, symmetry=0, max_lits=10.
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 This ia a non-Horn set with equality. The strategy will be
% 0.12/0.37 Knuth-Bendix, ordered hyper_res, ur_res, factoring, and
% 0.12/0.37 unit deletion, with positive clauses in sos and nonpositive
% 0.12/0.37 clauses in usable.
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(knuth_bendix).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(para_from).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(para_into).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(para_from_right).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: clear(para_into_right).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(para_from_vars).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(eq_units_both_ways).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(dynamic_demod_all).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(dynamic_demod).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(order_eq).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(back_demod).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(lrpo).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.12/0.37 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 ------------> process usable:
% 0.12/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 20 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -cUnsatisfiable(A)| -rtt(A,B)| -rtt(A,C)|B=C.
% 0.12/0.37 11 back subsumes 5.
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 ------------> process sos:
% 0.12/0.37 60 back subsumes 6.
% 0.12/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 63 during input processing: 0 [copy,63,flip.1] {-} A=A.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 59.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 58.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 57.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 56.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 55.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 54.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 53.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 52.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 51.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 50.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 49.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 48.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 47.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 46.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 45.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 44.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 43.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 42.
% 0.12/0.37 63 back subsumes 41.
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.20/0.40 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.20/0.40 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.20/0.40 number of clauses in intial UL: 38
% 0.20/0.40 number of clauses initially in problem: 42
% 0.20/0.40 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 90
% 0.20/0.40 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 89
% 0.20/0.40 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.20/0.40 absolute distinct symbol count: 19
% 0.20/0.40 distinct predicate count: 10
% 0.20/0.40 distinct function count: 8
% 0.20/0.40 distinct constant count: 1
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.20/0.40
% 0.20/0.40 =========== start of search ===========
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 -------- PROOF --------
% 0.68/0.88 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.68/0.88 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Model 3 [ 1 0 184 ] (0.00 seconds, 642 Inserts)
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Model 4 [ 1 0 107 ] (0.00 seconds, 624 Inserts)
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Model 5 [ 1 1 152 ] (0.00 seconds, 306 Inserts)
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 0.50 sec ----> 344 [hyper,342,18,62] {-} $F.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Length of proof is 3. Level of proof is 2.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 0.68/0.88 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.68/0.88 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 14 [] {+} -cUnsatisfiable(A)|rtt(A,$f2(A)).
% 0.68/0.88 15 [] {+} -cUnsatisfiable(A)|rtt(A,$f1(A)).
% 0.68/0.88 18 [] {+} -cUnsatisfiable(A)|$f2(A)!=$f1(A).
% 0.68/0.88 20 [] {+} -cUnsatisfiable(A)| -rtt(A,B)| -rtt(A,C)|B=C.
% 0.68/0.88 62 [] {-} cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215).
% 0.68/0.88 64 [hyper,62,15] {+} rtt(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215,$f1(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215)).
% 0.68/0.88 65 [hyper,62,14] {+} rtt(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215,$f2(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215)).
% 0.68/0.88 342 [hyper,65,20,62,64,flip.1] {+} $f2(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215)=$f1(i2003_11_14_17_20_29215).
% 0.68/0.88 344 [hyper,342,18,62] {-} $F.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.68/0.88 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 ============ end of search ============
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 true clauses given 2 (28.6%)
% 0.68/0.88 false clauses given 5
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 FALSE TRUE
% 0.68/0.88 3 0 1
% 0.68/0.88 4 0 1
% 0.68/0.88 10 0 1
% 0.68/0.88 12 0 3
% 0.68/0.88 28 6 6
% 0.68/0.88 29 9 15
% 0.68/0.88 30 9 18
% 0.68/0.88 31 9 18
% 0.68/0.88 32 6 33
% 0.68/0.88 33 0 63
% 0.68/0.88 34 0 54
% 0.68/0.88 35 0 21
% 0.68/0.88 36 0 3
% 0.68/0.88 tot: 39 237 (85.9% true)
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Model 5 [ 1 1 152 ] (0.00 seconds, 306 Inserts)
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 0.68/0.88
% 0.68/0.88 Process 23079 finished Tue Jun 7 09:07:37 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------