TSTP Solution File: PRO014+2 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : PRO014+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n027.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 : Mon Jul 18 17:53:36 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 2.19s 2.36s
% Output : Refutation 2.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : PRO014+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n027.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 : Mon Jun 13 01:23:31 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.35 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.12/0.35 The process was started by sandbox on n027.cluster.edu,
% 0.12/0.35 Mon Jun 13 01:23:31 2022
% 0.12/0.35 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 27551.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.12/0.35 set(auto).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.12/0.35 clear(print_given).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 formula_list(usable).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=1, symmetry=0, max_lits=8.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 This ia a non-Horn set with equality. The strategy will be
% 0.12/0.35 Knuth-Bendix, ordered hyper_res, ur_res, factoring, and
% 0.12/0.35 unit deletion, with positive clauses in sos and nonpositive
% 0.12/0.35 clauses in usable.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(knuth_bendix).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_from).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_into).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(para_from_right).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(para_into_right).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_from_vars).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(eq_units_both_ways).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(dynamic_demod_all).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(dynamic_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(order_eq).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(back_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(lrpo).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ------------> process usable:
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ------------> process sos:
% 0.12/0.35 Following clause subsumed by 95 during input processing: 0 [copy,95,flip.1] {-} A=A.
% 0.12/0.35 95 back subsumes 86.
% 0.12/0.35 95 back subsumes 85.
% 0.12/0.35 95 back subsumes 82.
% 0.12/0.35 95 back subsumes 81.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 Failed to model usable list: disabling FINDER
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.19/0.43 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.19/0.43 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.19/0.43 number of clauses in intial UL: 82
% 0.19/0.43 number of clauses initially in problem: 91
% 0.19/0.43 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 90
% 0.19/0.43 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 91
% 0.19/0.43 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.19/0.43 absolute distinct symbol count: 46
% 0.19/0.43 distinct predicate count: 18
% 0.19/0.43 distinct function count: 17
% 0.19/0.43 distinct constant count: 11
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 =========== start of search ===========
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 -------- PROOF --------
% 2.19/2.36 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.19/2.36 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 1.99 sec ----> 3398 [hyper,3396,80,145,144,1929,139] {-} $F.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 Length of proof is 10. Level of proof is 4.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 2.19/2.36 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.19/2.36 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 1 [] {+} -min_precedes(A,B,C)| -min_precedes(B,D,C)|min_precedes(A,D,C).
% 2.19/2.36 5 [] {+} -next_subocc(A,B,C)|min_precedes(A,B,C).
% 2.19/2.36 64 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|occurrence_of($f17(B,A),tptp3).
% 2.19/2.36 65 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|next_subocc(B,$f17(B,A),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 67 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|next_subocc($f17(B,A),$f16(B,A),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 68 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|occurrence_of($f15(B,A),tptp2)|occurrence_of($f15(B,A),tptp1).
% 2.19/2.36 69 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|next_subocc($f16(B,A),$f15(B,A),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 70 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp0)| -subactivity_occurrence(B,A)| -arboreal(B)|leaf_occ(B,A)|leaf($f15(B,A),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 78 [] {+} -leaf_occ($c2,$c1).
% 2.19/2.36 79 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp3)| -next_subocc($c2,A,tptp0)| -occurrence_of(B,tptp2)| -min_precedes(A,B,tptp0)| -leaf(B,tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 80 [] {+} -occurrence_of(A,tptp3)| -next_subocc($c2,A,tptp0)| -occurrence_of(B,tptp1)| -min_precedes(A,B,tptp0)| -leaf(B,tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 92 [] {-} occurrence_of($c1,tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 93 [] {-} subactivity_occurrence($c2,$c1).
% 2.19/2.36 94 [] {-} arboreal($c2).
% 2.19/2.36 139 [hyper,93,70,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} leaf($f15($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 140 [hyper,93,69,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} next_subocc($f16($c2,$c1),$f15($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 141 [hyper,93,68,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} occurrence_of($f15($c2,$c1),tptp2)|occurrence_of($f15($c2,$c1),tptp1).
% 2.19/2.36 142 [hyper,93,67,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} next_subocc($f17($c2,$c1),$f16($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 144 [hyper,93,65,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} next_subocc($c2,$f17($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 145 [hyper,93,64,92,94,unit_del,78] {-} occurrence_of($f17($c2,$c1),tptp3).
% 2.19/2.36 1378 [hyper,140,5] {-} min_precedes($f16($c2,$c1),$f15($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 1427 [hyper,142,5] {-} min_precedes($f17($c2,$c1),$f16($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 1929 [hyper,1427,1,1378] {-} min_precedes($f17($c2,$c1),$f15($c2,$c1),tptp0).
% 2.19/2.36 3396 [hyper,141,79,145,144,1929,139] {-} occurrence_of($f15($c2,$c1),tptp1).
% 2.19/2.36 3398 [hyper,3396,80,145,144,1929,139] {-} $F.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.19/2.36 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 ============ end of search ============
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 2.19/2.36
% 2.19/2.36 Process 27551 finished Mon Jun 13 01:23:33 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------