TSTP Solution File: COL116-2 by Moca---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Moca---0.1
% Problem : COL116-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : moca.sh %s
% Computer : n024.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 : Fri Jul 15 00:37:59 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.38s
% Output : Proof 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : COL116-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.06/0.13 % Command : moca.sh %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n024.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 May 31 10:00:51 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.38 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.12/0.38 The input problem is unsatisfiable because
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 [1] the following set of Horn clauses is unsatisfiable:
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb, v_z), c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb, v_z)), V_U, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ==> \bottom
% 0.12/0.38 c_in(c_Pair(V_x, V_x, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb))
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 This holds because
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 [2] the following E entails the following G (Claessen-Smallbone's transformation (2018)):
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 E:
% 0.12/0.38 c_in(c_Pair(V_x, V_x, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb)) = true__
% 0.12/0.38 f1(c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb, v_z), c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb, v_z)), V_U, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb))) = true__
% 0.12/0.38 f1(true__) = false__
% 0.12/0.38 G:
% 0.12/0.38 true__ = false__
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 This holds because
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 [3] E entails the following ordered TRS and the lhs and rhs of G join by the TRS:
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 c_in(c_Pair(V_x, V_x, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb)) -> true__
% 0.12/0.38 f1(c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb, v_z), c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb, v_z)), V_U, tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb), c_Comb_Oparcontract, tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb, tc_Comb_Ocomb))) -> true__
% 0.12/0.38 f1(true__) -> false__
% 0.12/0.38 false__ -> true__
% 0.12/0.38 with the LPO induced by
% 0.12/0.38 tc_prod > c_in > c_Comb_Oparcontract > tc_Comb_Ocomb > v_yb > v_xb > v_z > c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D > c_Pair > f1 > false__ > true__
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.12/0.38
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------