TSTP Solution File: ALG361-1 by Twee---2.4.2

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem  : ALG361-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof

% Computer : n015.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  : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Aug 30 16:43:04 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 28.85s 4.06s
% Output   : Proof 28.85s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : ALG361-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13  % Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.14/0.34  % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.34  % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:01:39 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 28.85/4.06  Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 1 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  % SZS output start Proof
% 28.85/4.06  Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 28.85/4.06    fof(cls_CHAINED_0, axiom, c_SEQ_Osubseq(v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s))).
% 28.85/4.06    fof(cls_CHAINED_1, axiom, c_SEQ_Omonoseq(c_COMBB(c_Complex_ORe, c_COMBB(v_s, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s), tc_nat, tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_nat), tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_RealDef_Oreal, tc_nat))).
% 28.85/4.06    fof(cls_conjecture_0, negated_conjecture, ~v_thesis____).
% 28.85/4.06    fof(cls_that_0, axiom, ![V_f]: (v_thesis____ | (~c_SEQ_Omonoseq(c_COMBB(c_Complex_ORe, c_COMBB(v_s, V_f, tc_nat, tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_nat), tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_RealDef_Oreal, tc_nat)) | ~c_SEQ_Osubseq(V_f)))).
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 28.85/4.06  http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 28.85/4.06  We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 28.85/4.06    fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 28.85/4.06    C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 28.85/4.06  where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 28.85/4.06  variables of u and v.
% 28.85/4.06  A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 28.85/4.06  input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  Axiom 1 (cls_CHAINED_0): c_SEQ_Osubseq(v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s)) = true2.
% 28.85/4.06  Axiom 2 (cls_that_0): fresh56(X, X) = true2.
% 28.85/4.06  Axiom 3 (cls_that_0): fresh57(X, X, Y) = v_thesis____.
% 28.85/4.06  Axiom 4 (cls_CHAINED_1): c_SEQ_Omonoseq(c_COMBB(c_Complex_ORe, c_COMBB(v_s, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s), tc_nat, tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_nat), tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_RealDef_Oreal, tc_nat)) = true2.
% 28.85/4.06  Axiom 5 (cls_that_0): fresh57(c_SEQ_Osubseq(X), true2, X) = fresh56(c_SEQ_Omonoseq(c_COMBB(c_Complex_ORe, c_COMBB(v_s, X, tc_nat, tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_nat), tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_RealDef_Oreal, tc_nat)), true2).
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  Goal 1 (cls_conjecture_0): v_thesis____ = true2.
% 28.85/4.06  Proof:
% 28.85/4.06    v_thesis____
% 28.85/4.06  = { by axiom 3 (cls_that_0) R->L }
% 28.85/4.06    fresh57(true2, true2, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s))
% 28.85/4.06  = { by axiom 1 (cls_CHAINED_0) R->L }
% 28.85/4.06    fresh57(c_SEQ_Osubseq(v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s)), true2, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s))
% 28.85/4.06  = { by axiom 5 (cls_that_0) }
% 28.85/4.06    fresh56(c_SEQ_Omonoseq(c_COMBB(c_Complex_ORe, c_COMBB(v_s, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_s), tc_nat, tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_nat), tc_Complex_Ocomplex, tc_RealDef_Oreal, tc_nat)), true2)
% 28.85/4.06  = { by axiom 4 (cls_CHAINED_1) }
% 28.85/4.06    fresh56(true2, true2)
% 28.85/4.06  = { by axiom 2 (cls_that_0) }
% 28.85/4.06    true2
% 28.85/4.06  % SZS output end Proof
% 28.85/4.06  
% 28.85/4.06  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------