TSTP Solution File: SWV050+1 by SPASS---3.9

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SPASS---3.9
% Problem  : SWV050+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : run_spass %d %s

% Computer : n011.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 : Wed Jul 20 21:41:06 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.19s 0.51s
% Output   : Refutation 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : SWV050+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.12  % Command  : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n011.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 14 17:32:19 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.51  
% 0.19/0.51  SPASS V 3.9 
% 0.19/0.51  SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.19/0.51  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.51  Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 
% 0.19/0.51  SPASS derived 39 clauses, backtracked 11 clauses, performed 1 splits and kept 169 clauses.
% 0.19/0.51  SPASS allocated 85775 KBytes.
% 0.19/0.51  SPASS spent	0:00:00.17 on the problem.
% 0.19/0.51  		0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.19/0.51  		0:00:00.08 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.19/0.51  		0:00:00.00 for inferences.
% 0.19/0.51  		0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.19/0.51  		0:00:00.02 for the reduction.
% 0.19/0.51  
% 0.19/0.51  
% 0.19/0.51  Here is a proof with depth 1, length 21 :
% 0.19/0.51  % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.19/0.51  23[0:Inp] ||  -> leq(u,u)*.
% 0.19/0.51  27[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(succ(tptp_minus_1),n0)**.
% 0.19/0.51  46[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(pred(succ(u)),u)**.
% 0.19/0.51  49[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,tptp_minus_1,u),n0)**.
% 0.19/0.51  50[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,tptp_minus_1,u),tptp_float_0_0)**.
% 0.19/0.51  53[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(minus(u,n1),pred(u))**.
% 0.19/0.51  93[0:Inp] || leq(u,n0)* leq(n0,u)* -> equal(u,n0).
% 0.19/0.51  110[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,minus(n5,n1),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(rho,pv89),a_select2(rhoold,pv89))),plus(abs(a_select2(rho,pv89)),abs(a_select2(rhoold,pv89))))),pv88)**.
% 0.19/0.51  111[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,minus(n5,n1),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(mu,pv87),a_select2(muold,pv87))),plus(abs(a_select2(mu,pv87)),abs(a_select2(muold,pv87))))),pv86)**.
% 0.19/0.51  136[0:Inp] || equal(sum__dfg(n0,minus(n0,n1),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(sigma,pv91),a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))),plus(abs(a_select2(sigma,pv91)),abs(a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))))),n0) equal(sum__dfg(n0,minus(n5,n1),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(mu,pv87),a_select2(muold,pv87))),plus(abs(a_select2(mu,pv87)),abs(a_select2(muold,pv87))))),pv86) equal(sum__dfg(n0,minus(n5,n1),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(rho,pv89),a_select2(rhoold,pv89))),plus(abs(a_select2(rho,pv89)),abs(a_select2(rhoold,pv89))))),pv88)** -> .
% 0.19/0.51  138[0:Rew:50.0,49.0] ||  -> equal(tptp_float_0_0,n0)**.
% 0.19/0.51  139[0:Rew:138.0,50.0] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,tptp_minus_1,u),n0)**.
% 0.19/0.51  150[0:Rew:53.0,110.0] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,pred(n5),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(rho,pv89),a_select2(rhoold,pv89))),plus(abs(a_select2(rho,pv89)),abs(a_select2(rhoold,pv89))))),pv88)**.
% 0.19/0.51  151[0:Rew:53.0,111.0] ||  -> equal(sum__dfg(n0,pred(n5),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(mu,pv87),a_select2(muold,pv87))),plus(abs(a_select2(mu,pv87)),abs(a_select2(muold,pv87))))),pv86)**.
% 0.19/0.51  152[0:Rew:150.0,136.2,53.0,136.2,151.0,136.1,53.0,136.1,53.0,136.0] || equal(sum__dfg(n0,pred(n0),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(sigma,pv91),a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))),plus(abs(a_select2(sigma,pv91)),abs(a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))))),n0)** equal(pv86,pv86) equal(pv88,pv88) -> .
% 0.19/0.51  153[0:Obv:152.2] || equal(sum__dfg(n0,pred(n0),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(sigma,pv91),a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))),plus(abs(a_select2(sigma,pv91)),abs(a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))))),n0)** -> .
% 0.19/0.51  159[0:Res:93.2,153.0] || leq(n0,sum__dfg(n0,pred(n0),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(sigma,pv91),a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))),plus(abs(a_select2(sigma,pv91)),abs(a_select2(sigmaold,pv91)))))) leq(sum__dfg(n0,pred(n0),divide(abs(minus(a_select2(sigma,pv91),a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))),plus(abs(a_select2(sigma,pv91)),abs(a_select2(sigmaold,pv91))))),n0)*l -> .
% 0.19/0.51  190[0:SpR:27.0,46.0] ||  -> equal(pred(n0),tptp_minus_1)**.
% 0.19/0.51  214[0:Rew:139.0,159.1,190.0,159.1,139.0,159.0,190.0,159.0] || leq(n0,n0)* leq(n0,n0)* -> .
% 0.19/0.51  215[0:Obv:214.0] || leq(n0,n0)* -> .
% 0.19/0.51  216[0:MRR:215.0,23.0] ||  -> .
% 0.19/0.51  % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.19/0.51  Formulae used in the proof : reflexivity_leq succ_tptp_minus_1 pred_succ sum_plus_base sum_plus_base_float pred_minus_1 finite_domain_0 cl5_nebula_norm_0022
% 0.19/0.51  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------