%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Moca---0.1
% Problem  : ROB030-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : moca.sh %s

% Computer : n022.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 20:54:53 EDT 2022

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.39s
% Output   : Proof 0.20s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.12  % Problem  : ROB030-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.04/0.13  % Command  : moca.sh %s
% 0.12/0.34  % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.12/0.34  % DateTime : Thu Jun  9 13:20:34 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.39  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.39  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.39  The input problem is unsatisfiable because
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  [1] the following set of Horn clauses is unsatisfiable:
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  	add(X, Y) = add(Y, X)
% 0.20/0.39  	add(add(X, Y), Z) = add(X, add(Y, Z))
% 0.20/0.39  	negate(add(negate(add(X, Y)), negate(add(X, negate(Y))))) = X
% 0.20/0.39  	add(c, d) = d
% 0.20/0.39  	negate(add(A, B)) = negate(B) ==> \bottom
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  This holds because
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  [2] the following E entails the following G (Claessen-Smallbone's transformation (2018)):
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  E:
% 0.20/0.39  	add(X, Y) = add(Y, X)
% 0.20/0.39  	add(add(X, Y), Z) = add(X, add(Y, Z))
% 0.20/0.39  	add(c, d) = d
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(negate(B), B) = false__
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(negate(add(A, B)), B) = true__
% 0.20/0.39  	negate(add(negate(add(X, Y)), negate(add(X, negate(Y))))) = X
% 0.20/0.39  G:
% 0.20/0.39  	true__ = false__
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  This holds because
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  [3] E entails the following ordered TRS and the lhs and rhs of G join by the TRS:
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  	add(X, Y) = add(Y, X)
% 0.20/0.39  	add(Y1, add(Y0, Y2)) = add(Y0, add(Y1, Y2))
% 0.20/0.39  	add(Y2, add(Y0, Y1)) = add(Y0, add(Y1, Y2))
% 0.20/0.39  	add(add(X, Y), Z) -> add(X, add(Y, Z))
% 0.20/0.39  	add(c, add(d, Y2)) -> add(d, Y2)
% 0.20/0.39  	add(c, d) -> d
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(X0, add(negate(add(X0, X1)), negate(add(X0, negate(X1))))) -> false__
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(negate(B), B) -> false__
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(negate(add(A, B)), B) -> true__
% 0.20/0.39  	f1(negate(add(Y1, Y0)), Y1) -> true__
% 0.20/0.39  	negate(add(negate(add(X, Y)), negate(add(X, negate(Y))))) -> X
% 0.20/0.39  	negate(add(negate(d), negate(add(c, negate(d))))) -> c
% 0.20/0.39  	true__ -> false__
% 0.20/0.39  with the LPO induced by
% 0.20/0.39  	negate > d > add > c > f1 > true__ > false__
% 0.20/0.39  
% 0.20/0.39  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.39  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------