TSTP Solution File: SWV109+1 by SPASS---3.9
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SPASS---3.9
% Problem : SWV109+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : run_spass %d %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 : Wed Jul 20 21:41:19 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.66s 1.89s
% Output : Refutation 1.66s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.12 % Problem : SWV109+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.10/0.13 % Command : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n027.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 : Tue Jun 14 19:02:03 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 1.66/1.89
% 1.66/1.89 SPASS V 3.9
% 1.66/1.89 SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 1.66/1.89 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.66/1.89 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.66/1.89 SPASS derived 5587 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 2 splits and kept 2880 clauses.
% 1.66/1.89 SPASS allocated 90930 KBytes.
% 1.66/1.89 SPASS spent 0:00:01.51 on the problem.
% 1.66/1.89 0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 1.66/1.89 0:00:00.09 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 1.66/1.89 0:00:00.04 for inferences.
% 1.66/1.89 0:00:00.02 for the backtracking.
% 1.66/1.89 0:00:01.14 for the reduction.
% 1.66/1.89
% 1.66/1.89
% 1.66/1.89 Here is a proof with depth 1, length 40 :
% 1.66/1.89 % SZS output start Refutation
% 1.66/1.89 1[0:Inp] || -> SkC0*.
% 1.66/1.89 2[0:Inp] || -> SkC1*.
% 1.66/1.89 3[0:Inp] || -> SkC2*.
% 1.66/1.89 8[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,skc9)*r.
% 1.66/1.89 9[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,skc8)*r.
% 1.66/1.89 10[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,pv5)*r.
% 1.66/1.89 49[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(n0),n1)**.
% 1.66/1.89 57[0:Inp] || -> leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 59[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(n0)),n2)**.
% 1.66/1.89 76[0:Inp] || -> equal(pred(succ(u)),u)**.
% 1.66/1.89 78[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(n0))),n3)**.
% 1.66/1.89 83[0:Inp] || -> equal(minus(u,n1),pred(u))**.
% 1.66/1.89 85[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0)))),n4)**.
% 1.66/1.89 95[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0))))),n5)**.
% 1.66/1.89 111[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0)))))),n6)**.
% 1.66/1.89 138[0:Inp] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc9,minus(n6,n1))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 139[0:Inp] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc8,minus(n6,n1))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 144[0:Inp] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> .
% 1.66/1.89 150[0:Inp] || leq(n0,u) leq(u,minus(n6,n1)) leq(n0,v) leq(v,minus(n6,n1)) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u))*.
% 1.66/1.89 173[0:Rew:49.0,59.0] || -> equal(succ(n1),n2)**.
% 1.66/1.89 176[0:Rew:173.0,78.0,49.0,78.0] || -> equal(succ(n2),n3)**.
% 1.66/1.89 178[0:Rew:176.0,85.0,173.0,85.0,49.0,85.0] || -> equal(succ(n3),n4)**.
% 1.66/1.89 181[0:Rew:178.0,95.0,176.0,95.0,173.0,95.0,49.0,95.0] || -> equal(succ(n4),n5)**.
% 1.66/1.89 184[0:Rew:181.0,111.0,178.0,111.0,176.0,111.0,173.0,111.0,49.0,111.0] || -> equal(succ(n5),n6)**.
% 1.66/1.89 188[0:Rew:83.0,57.0] || -> leq(pv5,pred(n999))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 192[0:Rew:83.0,138.5,83.0,138.1] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc9,pred(n6))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 193[0:MRR:192.0,192.1,192.2,192.3,192.4,10.0,188.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || -> leq(skc9,pred(n6))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 194[0:Rew:83.0,139.5,83.0,139.1] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc8,pred(n6))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 195[0:MRR:194.0,194.1,194.2,194.3,194.4,10.0,188.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || -> leq(skc8,pred(n6))*r.
% 1.66/1.89 196[0:Rew:83.0,144.2] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> .
% 1.66/1.89 197[0:MRR:196.1,196.2,196.3,196.4,196.5,10.0,188.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** -> .
% 1.66/1.89 198[0:Rew:83.0,150.3,83.0,150.1] || leq(u,pred(n6)) leq(v,pred(n6)) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 1.66/1.89 811[0:SpR:184.0,76.0] || -> equal(pred(n6),n5)**.
% 1.66/1.89 819[0:Rew:811.0,198.0] || leq(u,n5) leq(v,pred(n6)) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 1.66/1.89 824[0:Rew:811.0,193.0] || -> leq(skc9,n5)*l.
% 1.66/1.89 825[0:Rew:811.0,195.0] || -> leq(skc8,n5)*l.
% 1.66/1.89 829[0:Rew:811.0,819.1] || leq(u,n5) leq(v,n5) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 1.66/1.89 7471[0:SpL:829.4,197.0] || leq(skc8,n5) leq(skc9,n5) leq(n0,skc8) leq(n0,skc9) equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))* -> .
% 1.66/1.89 7481[0:Obv:7471.4] || leq(skc8,n5) leq(skc9,n5)*l leq(n0,skc8) leq(n0,skc9) -> .
% 1.66/1.89 7482[0:MRR:7481.0,7481.1,7481.2,7481.3,825.0,824.0,9.0,8.0] || -> .
% 1.66/1.89 % SZS output end Refutation
% 1.66/1.89 Formulae used in the proof : quaternion_ds1_symm_0002 gt_succ leq_succ_gt_equiv successor_1 successor_2 pred_succ successor_3 pred_minus_1 successor_4 successor_5 successor_6
% 1.66/1.89
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------