TSTP Solution File: LDA007-2 by Twee---2.4.2

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem  : LDA007-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v2.6.0.
% 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 : n025.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 : Thu Aug 31 09:04:47 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.39s
% Output   : Proof 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : LDA007-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v2.6.0.
% 0.13/0.13  % Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.34  % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 01:37:53 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.39  Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 9 --flip-ordering --complete-subsets --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10
% 0.19/0.39  
% 0.19/0.39  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.39  
% 0.19/0.40  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.19/0.40  Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 0.19/0.40    fof(a1, axiom, ![X, Y, Z]: f(X, f(Y, Z))=f(f(X, Y), f(X, Z))).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(clause_1, axiom, tt=f(t, t)).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(clause_3, axiom, ts=f(t, s)).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(clause_4, axiom, tt_ts=f(tt, ts)).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(clause_7, axiom, tk=f(t, k)).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(clause_9, axiom, tsk=f(ts, k)).
% 0.19/0.40    fof(prove_equation, negated_conjecture, f(t, tsk)!=f(tt_ts, tk)).
% 0.19/0.40  
% 0.19/0.40  Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 0.19/0.40  http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 0.19/0.40  We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 0.19/0.40    fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 0.19/0.40    C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 0.19/0.40  where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 0.19/0.40  variables of u and v.
% 0.19/0.40  A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 0.19/0.40  input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 0.19/0.40  
% 0.19/0.40  The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 0.19/0.40  
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 1 (clause_1): tt = f(t, t).
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 2 (clause_7): tk = f(t, k).
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 3 (clause_3): ts = f(t, s).
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 4 (clause_4): tt_ts = f(tt, ts).
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 5 (clause_9): tsk = f(ts, k).
% 0.19/0.40  Axiom 6 (a1): f(X, f(Y, Z)) = f(f(X, Y), f(X, Z)).
% 0.19/0.40  
% 0.19/0.40  Goal 1 (prove_equation): f(t, tsk) = f(tt_ts, tk).
% 0.19/0.40  Proof:
% 0.19/0.40    f(t, tsk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 5 (clause_9) }
% 0.19/0.40    f(t, f(ts, k))
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 6 (a1) }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(t, ts), f(t, k))
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 2 (clause_7) R->L }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(t, ts), tk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 3 (clause_3) }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(t, f(t, s)), tk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 6 (a1) }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(f(t, t), f(t, s)), tk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 1 (clause_1) R->L }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(tt, f(t, s)), tk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 3 (clause_3) R->L }
% 0.19/0.40    f(f(tt, ts), tk)
% 0.19/0.40  = { by axiom 4 (clause_4) R->L }
% 0.19/0.40    f(tt_ts, tk)
% 0.19/0.40  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.19/0.40  
% 0.19/0.40  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------