TSTP Solution File: CSR034+1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : CSR034+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n020.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 23:21:18 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 2.37s 2.58s
% Output : Refutation 2.37s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : CSR034+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.04/0.13 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sat Jun 11 19:12:20 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.37 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.21/0.37 The process was started by sandbox2 on n020.cluster.edu,
% 0.21/0.37 Sat Jun 11 19:12:20 2022
% 0.21/0.37 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 23920.
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.21/0.37 set(auto).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.21/0.37 clear(print_given).
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 formula_list(usable).
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=1, equality=0, symmetry=0, max_lits=3.
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 This is a Horn set without equality. The strategy will
% 0.21/0.37 be hyperresolution, with satellites in sos and nuclei
% 0.21/0.37 in usable.
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.21/0.37 dependent: clear(order_hyper).
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 ------------> process usable:
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 6 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genlpreds(A,B)|predicate(B).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 7 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genlpreds(A,B)|predicate(A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 9 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -predicate(A)|genlpreds(A,A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 21 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -isa(A,B)|collection(B).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 22 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -isa(A,B)|thing(A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 28 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genls(A,B)|collection(B).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 29 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genls(A,B)|collection(A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 31 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -collection(A)|genls(A,A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 30 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genls(A,B)| -genls(C,A)|genls(C,B).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 30 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genls(A,B)| -genls(B,C)|genls(A,C).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 33 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genlmt(A,B)|microtheory(B).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 34 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -genlmt(A,B)|microtheory(A).
% 0.21/0.37 Following clause subsumed by 36 during input processing: 0 [] {-} -microtheory(A)|genlmt(A,A).
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 ------------> process sos:
% 0.21/0.37
% 0.21/0.37 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.21/0.41 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.21/0.41 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.21/0.41 number of clauses in intial UL: 37
% 0.21/0.41 number of clauses initially in problem: 59
% 0.21/0.41 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 62
% 0.21/0.41 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 48
% 0.21/0.41 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.21/0.41 absolute distinct symbol count: 43
% 0.21/0.41 distinct predicate count: 17
% 0.21/0.41 distinct function count: 1
% 0.21/0.41 distinct constant count: 25
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.21/0.41
% 0.21/0.41 =========== start of search ===========
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 -------- PROOF --------
% 2.37/2.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.37/2.58 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 3 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 4 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 5 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 6 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 7 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 8 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 9 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 10 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 11 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 12 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 13 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 14 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 15 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 16 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 17 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 18 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 19 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 20 [ 2 1 165 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 21 (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 22 [ 2 0 1080 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 23 [ 1 0 2826 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 24 [ 1 1 170 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 25 [ 5 0 2736 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 26 [ 6 0 649 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 27 [ 3 1 257 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 28 [ 1 1 764 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 29 [ 3 0 1297 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 30 [ 10 0 185 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 31 [ 7 0 569 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 32 [ 9 0 459 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 33 [ 2 0 414 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 34 [ 3 1 2041 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 35 [ 4 0 692 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 36 [ 9 1 1369 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 37 [ 4 6 232476 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 38 [ 4 0 3465 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 39 [ 6 1 920 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 40 [ 6 1 437 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 41 [ 6 0 463 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 ----> UNIT CONFLICT at 2.18 sec ----> 141 [binary,140.1,37.1] {-} $F.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Length of proof is 16. Level of proof is 10.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 2.37/2.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.37/2.58 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 3 [] {+} -mtvisible(c_worldgeographymt)|state_geopolitical(c_wanica_districtsuriname).
% 2.37/2.58 27 [] {+} -state_geopolitical(A)|isa(A,c_state_geopolitical).
% 2.37/2.58 32 [] {+} -mtvisible(A)| -genlmt(A,B)|mtvisible(B).
% 2.37/2.58 35 [] {+} -genlmt(A,B)| -genlmt(B,C)|genlmt(A,C).
% 2.37/2.58 37 [] {+} -isa(c_wanica_districtsuriname,A).
% 2.37/2.58 38 [] {+} genlmt(c_worldgeographydualistmt,c_worldgeographymt).
% 2.37/2.58 39 [] {+} genlmt(c_ethnicgroupsvocabularymt,c_worldcompletedualistgeographymt).
% 2.37/2.58 41 [] {+} genlmt(c_nooescapearchitecturemt,c_organizationdatamt).
% 2.37/2.58 42 [] {+} genlmt(c_testvocabularymt,c_nooescapearchitecturemt).
% 2.37/2.58 43 [] {+} genlmt(c_unitedstatesgeographydualistmt,c_worldgeographydualistmt).
% 2.37/2.58 44 [] {+} genlmt(c_cyclistsmt,c_keinteractionresourcetestmt).
% 2.37/2.58 45 [] {-} genlmt(c_keinteractionresourcetestmt,c_testvocabularymt).
% 2.37/2.58 46 [] {+} genlmt(c_worldcompletedualistgeographymt,c_unitedstatesgeographydualistmt).
% 2.37/2.58 47 [] {+} genlmt(c_massmediadatamt,c_ethnicgroupsmt).
% 2.37/2.58 49 [] {+} genlmt(c_ethnicgroupsmt,c_ethnicgroupsvocabularymt).
% 2.37/2.58 50 [] {+} genlmt(c_organizationdatamt,f_contextofpcwfn(c_ap_martha_stewart_omnimedia_names_chairman)).
% 2.37/2.58 51 [] {+} genlmt(f_contextofpcwfn(c_ap_martha_stewart_omnimedia_names_chairman),c_massmediadatamt).
% 2.37/2.58 52 [] {+} genlmt(c_tptp_spindleheadmt,c_cyclistsmt).
% 2.37/2.58 53 [] {+} genlmt(c_tptp_member3515_mt,c_tptp_spindleheadmt).
% 2.37/2.58 59 [] {+} mtvisible(c_tptp_member3515_mt).
% 2.37/2.58 70 [hyper,46,35,39] {+} genlmt(c_ethnicgroupsvocabularymt,c_unitedstatesgeographydualistmt).
% 2.37/2.58 75 [hyper,43,35,38] {+} genlmt(c_unitedstatesgeographydualistmt,c_worldgeographymt).
% 2.37/2.58 77 [hyper,45,35,42] {-} genlmt(c_keinteractionresourcetestmt,c_nooescapearchitecturemt).
% 2.37/2.58 87 [hyper,47,35,49] {-} genlmt(c_massmediadatamt,c_ethnicgroupsvocabularymt).
% 2.37/2.58 92 [hyper,53,32,59] {+} mtvisible(c_tptp_spindleheadmt).
% 2.37/2.58 96 [hyper,51,35,50] {+} genlmt(c_organizationdatamt,c_massmediadatamt).
% 2.37/2.58 99 [hyper,92,32,52] {+} mtvisible(c_cyclistsmt).
% 2.37/2.58 100 [hyper,96,35,41] {+} genlmt(c_nooescapearchitecturemt,c_massmediadatamt).
% 2.37/2.58 104 [hyper,99,32,44] {+} mtvisible(c_keinteractionresourcetestmt).
% 2.37/2.58 114 [hyper,104,32,77] {-} mtvisible(c_nooescapearchitecturemt).
% 2.37/2.58 131 [hyper,100,32,114] {+} mtvisible(c_massmediadatamt).
% 2.37/2.58 132 [hyper,131,32,87] {+} mtvisible(c_ethnicgroupsvocabularymt).
% 2.37/2.58 135 [hyper,132,32,70] {+} mtvisible(c_unitedstatesgeographydualistmt).
% 2.37/2.58 137 [hyper,135,32,75] {-} mtvisible(c_worldgeographymt).
% 2.37/2.58 139 [hyper,137,3] {-} state_geopolitical(c_wanica_districtsuriname).
% 2.37/2.58 140 [hyper,139,27] {-} isa(c_wanica_districtsuriname,c_state_geopolitical).
% 2.37/2.58 141 [binary,140.1,37.1] {-} $F.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.37/2.58 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 ============ end of search ============
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 true clauses given 12 (20.0%)
% 2.37/2.58 false clauses given 48
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 FALSE TRUE
% 2.37/2.58 2 0 7
% 2.37/2.58 3 3 27
% 2.37/2.58 4 2 2
% 2.37/2.58 5 0 1
% 2.37/2.58 tot: 5 37 (88.1% true)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Model 41 [ 6 -17 463 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 2.37/2.58
% 2.37/2.58 Process 23920 finished Sat Jun 11 19:12:22 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------