TSTP Solution File: REL009+2 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : REL009+2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz
% Memory : 2006MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Dec 29 21:41:12 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 13.31s
% Output : Solution 13.31s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% Reading problem from /tmp/SystemOnTPTP25273/REL009+2.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP25273/REL009+2.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP25273/REL009+2.tptp
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% TreeLimitedRun: /home/graph/tptp/Systems/EP---1.2/eproof --print-statistics -xAuto -tAuto --cpu-limit=60 --proof-time-unlimited --memory-limit=Auto --tstp-in --tstp-out /tmp/SRASS.s.p
% TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 60s
% TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 120s
% TreeLimitedRun: PID is 25405
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% PrfWatch: 1.93 CPU 2.02 WC
% PrfWatch: 3.93 CPU 4.03 WC
% PrfWatch: 5.92 CPU 6.04 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% PrfWatch: 7.91 CPU 8.04 WC
% PrfWatch: 9.91 CPU 10.05 WC
% PrfWatch: 11.89 CPU 12.06 WC
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(4, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:composition(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', composition_distributivity)).
% fof(5, axiom,![X1]:converse(converse(X1))=X1,file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_idempotence)).
% fof(6, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_multiplicativity)).
% fof(11, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_additivity)).
% fof(17, conjecture,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:(join(X1,X2)=X2=>(join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))=composition(X2,X3)&join(composition(X3,X1),composition(X3,X2))=composition(X3,X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', goals)).
% fof(18, negated_conjecture,~(![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:(join(X1,X2)=X2=>(join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))=composition(X2,X3)&join(composition(X3,X1),composition(X3,X2))=composition(X3,X2)))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[17])).
% fof(25, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:composition(join(X4,X5),X6)=join(composition(X4,X6),composition(X5,X6)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[4])).
% cnf(26,plain,(composition(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[25])).
% fof(27, plain,![X2]:converse(converse(X2))=X2,inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[5])).
% cnf(28,plain,(converse(converse(X1))=X1),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[27])).
% fof(29, plain,![X3]:![X4]:converse(composition(X3,X4))=composition(converse(X4),converse(X3)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[6])).
% cnf(30,plain,(converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[29])).
% fof(39, plain,![X3]:![X4]:converse(join(X3,X4))=join(converse(X3),converse(X4)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[11])).
% cnf(40,plain,(converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[39])).
% fof(51, negated_conjecture,?[X1]:?[X2]:?[X3]:(join(X1,X2)=X2&(~(join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))=composition(X2,X3))|~(join(composition(X3,X1),composition(X3,X2))=composition(X3,X2)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(52, negated_conjecture,?[X4]:?[X5]:?[X6]:(join(X4,X5)=X5&(~(join(composition(X4,X6),composition(X5,X6))=composition(X5,X6))|~(join(composition(X6,X4),composition(X6,X5))=composition(X6,X5)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[51])).
% fof(53, negated_conjecture,(join(esk1_0,esk2_0)=esk2_0&(~(join(composition(esk1_0,esk3_0),composition(esk2_0,esk3_0))=composition(esk2_0,esk3_0))|~(join(composition(esk3_0,esk1_0),composition(esk3_0,esk2_0))=composition(esk3_0,esk2_0)))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[52])).
% cnf(54,negated_conjecture,(join(composition(esk3_0,esk1_0),composition(esk3_0,esk2_0))!=composition(esk3_0,esk2_0)|join(composition(esk1_0,esk3_0),composition(esk2_0,esk3_0))!=composition(esk2_0,esk3_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[53])).
% cnf(55,negated_conjecture,(join(esk1_0,esk2_0)=esk2_0),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[53])).
% cnf(98,plain,(converse(join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)))=composition(converse(X3),converse(join(X1,X2)))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[30,26,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(100,negated_conjecture,(composition(esk2_0,X1)=join(composition(esk1_0,X1),composition(esk2_0,X1))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[26,55,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(106,plain,(join(composition(converse(X3),converse(X1)),composition(converse(X3),converse(X2)))=composition(converse(X3),converse(join(X1,X2)))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[98,40,theory(equality)]),30,theory(equality)]),30,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(107,plain,(join(composition(converse(X3),converse(X1)),composition(converse(X3),converse(X2)))=composition(converse(X3),join(converse(X1),converse(X2)))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[106,40,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(4273,negated_conjecture,($false|join(composition(esk3_0,esk1_0),composition(esk3_0,esk2_0))!=composition(esk3_0,esk2_0)),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[54,100,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(4274,negated_conjecture,(join(composition(esk3_0,esk1_0),composition(esk3_0,esk2_0))!=composition(esk3_0,esk2_0)),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[4273,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(4805,plain,(composition(X1,join(converse(X2),converse(X3)))=join(composition(X1,converse(X2)),composition(X1,converse(X3)))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[107,28,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(415199,plain,(composition(X1,join(converse(X2),X3))=join(composition(X1,converse(X2)),composition(X1,X3))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[4805,28,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(422063,plain,(composition(X1,join(X2,X3))=join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X1,X3))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[415199,28,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(423135,negated_conjecture,(composition(X1,esk2_0)=join(composition(X1,esk1_0),composition(X1,esk2_0))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[422063,55,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(424853,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[4274,423135,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(424854,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[424853,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(424855,negated_conjecture,($false),424854,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 6748
% # ...of these trivial : 4338
% # ...subsumed : 1298
% # ...remaining for further processing: 1112
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 298
% # Generated clauses : 198601
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 86467
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 198601
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 814
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 808
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% # Negative unit clauses : 0
% # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 53625
% # ...number of literals in the above : 53625
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 21
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 7487
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 391
% # Backwards rewriting index: 647 leaves, 2.82+/-5.202 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 365 leaves, 2.24+/-2.913 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 609 leaves, 2.83+/-5.224 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 6.031 s
% # System time : 0.248 s
% # Total time : 6.279 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 12.26 CPU 12.43 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 12.26 CPU 12.43 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP25273/REL009+2.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------