TSTP Solution File: FLD066-3 by Prover9---1109a
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Prover9---1109a
% Problem : FLD066-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% Computer : n023.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 : Sat Jul 16 02:24:30 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.81s 1.09s
% Output : Refutation 0.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11 % Problem : FLD066-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n023.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 7 00:48:24 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== Prover9 ===============================
% 0.81/1.09 Prover9 (32) version 2009-11A, November 2009.
% 0.81/1.09 Process 29125 was started by sandbox2 on n023.cluster.edu,
% 0.81/1.09 Tue Jun 7 00:48:24 2022
% 0.81/1.09 The command was "/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/prover9 -t 300 -f /tmp/Prover9_28972_n023.cluster.edu".
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of head ===========================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== INPUT =================================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % Reading from file /tmp/Prover9_28972_n023.cluster.edu
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.81/1.09 set(auto2).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(auto).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_inference).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_setup).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto_setup) -> set(predicate_elim).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto_setup) -> assign(eq_defs, unfold).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_limits).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(max_weight, "100.000").
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(sos_limit, 20000).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_denials).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_process).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(new_constants, 1).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(fold_denial_max, 3).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_weight, "200.000").
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_hours, 1).
% 0.81/1.09 % assign(max_hours, 1) -> assign(max_seconds, 3600).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_seconds, 0).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_minutes, 5).
% 0.81/1.09 % assign(max_minutes, 5) -> assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(sort_initial_sos).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(sos_limit, -1).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(lrs_ticks, 3000).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_megs, 400).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(stats, some).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(echo_input).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(quiet).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_initial_clauses).
% 0.81/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_given).
% 0.81/1.09 assign(lrs_ticks,-1).
% 0.81/1.09 assign(sos_limit,10000).
% 0.81/1.09 assign(order,kbo).
% 0.81/1.09 set(lex_order_vars).
% 0.81/1.09 clear(print_given).
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % formulas(sos). % not echoed (35 formulas)
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of input ==========================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % From the command line: assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== PROCESS NON-CLAUSAL FORMULAS ==========
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % Formulas that are not ordinary clauses:
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of process non-clausal formulas ===
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== PROCESS INITIAL CLAUSES ===============
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== PREDICATE ELIMINATION =================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end predicate elimination =============
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 Auto_denials: (non-Horn, no changes).
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 Term ordering decisions:
% 0.81/1.09 Function symbol KB weights: additive_identity=1. c=1. multiplicative_identity=1. u=1. v=1. a=1. b=1. add=1. multiply=1. additive_inverse=1. multiplicative_inverse=1.
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of process initial clauses ========
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== CLAUSES FOR SEARCH ====================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of clauses for search =============
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== SEARCH ================================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % Starting search at 0.02 seconds.
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== PROOF =================================
% 0.81/1.09 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.81/1.09 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % Proof 1 at 0.11 (+ 0.01) seconds.
% 0.81/1.09 % Length of proof is 32.
% 0.81/1.09 % Level of proof is 9.
% 0.81/1.09 % Maximum clause weight is 16.000.
% 0.81/1.09 % Given clauses 159.
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 1 defined(additive_identity) # label(well_definedness_of_additive_identity) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 3 defined(a) # label(a_is_defined) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 4 defined(b) # label(b_is_defined) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 5 defined(c) # label(c_is_defined) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 8 less_or_equal(u,v) # label(less_or_equal_8) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 9 sum(a,c,u) # label(sum_6) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 10 sum(b,c,v) # label(sum_7) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 11 -less_or_equal(a,b) # label(not_less_or_equal_9) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 14 sum(additive_identity,A,A) | -defined(A) # label(existence_of_identity_addition) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 16 sum(additive_inverse(A),A,additive_identity) | -defined(A) # label(existence_of_inverse_addition) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 17 sum(A,B,C) | -sum(B,A,C) # label(commutativity_addition) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 25 sum(additive_identity,A,B) | -less_or_equal(A,B) | -less_or_equal(B,A) # label(antisymmetry_of_order_relation) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 26 less_or_equal(A,B) | less_or_equal(B,A) | -defined(A) | -defined(B) # label(totality_of_order_relation) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 29 less_or_equal(A,B) | -less_or_equal(C,D) | -sum(C,E,A) | -sum(D,E,B) # label(compatibility_of_order_relation_and_addition) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 30 sum(A,B,C) | -sum(A,D,E) | -sum(D,F,B) | -sum(E,F,C) # label(associativity_addition_1) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 31 sum(A,B,C) | -sum(D,E,A) | -sum(E,B,F) | -sum(D,F,C) # label(associativity_addition_2) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.81/1.09 68 sum(additive_identity,c,c). [resolve(14,b,5,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 69 sum(additive_identity,b,b). [resolve(14,b,4,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 70 sum(additive_identity,a,a). [resolve(14,b,3,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 82 sum(additive_inverse(c),c,additive_identity). [resolve(16,b,5,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 87 sum(c,b,v). [resolve(17,b,10,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 88 sum(c,a,u). [resolve(17,b,9,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 154 sum(additive_identity,v,u) | -less_or_equal(v,u). [resolve(25,c,8,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 161 less_or_equal(additive_identity,A) | less_or_equal(A,additive_identity) | -defined(A). [resolve(26,c,1,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 168 less_or_equal(additive_identity,additive_identity). [factor(161,a,b),unit_del(b,1)].
% 0.81/1.09 424 -sum(additive_identity,a,b). [ur(29,a,11,a,b,168,a,c,70,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 846 -sum(additive_inverse(c),u,b). [ur(31,a,424,a,b,82,a,c,88,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 1235 -sum(c,b,u). [ur(30,a,846,a,b,82,a,d,69,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 1238 -sum(additive_identity,v,u). [ur(31,a,1235,a,b,68,a,c,87,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 1240 -less_or_equal(v,u). [back_unit_del(154),unit_del(a,1238)].
% 0.81/1.09 1241 -less_or_equal(b,a). [ur(29,a,1240,a,c,10,a,d,9,a)].
% 0.81/1.09 1341 $F. [ur(26,a,11,a,b,1241,a,d,4,a),unit_del(a,3)].
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of proof ==========================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== STATISTICS ============================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 Given=159. Generated=1995. Kept=1340. proofs=1.
% 0.81/1.09 Usable=148. Sos=1168. Demods=0. Limbo=0, Disabled=59. Hints=0.
% 0.81/1.09 Megabytes=0.93.
% 0.81/1.09 User_CPU=0.11, System_CPU=0.01, Wall_clock=0.
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of statistics =====================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 ============================== end of search =========================
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 THEOREM PROVED
% 0.81/1.09 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 Exiting with 1 proof.
% 0.81/1.09
% 0.81/1.09 Process 29125 exit (max_proofs) Tue Jun 7 00:48:24 2022
% 0.81/1.09 Prover9 interrupted
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------