TSTP Solution File: GEO061-2 by Gandalf---c-2.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem : GEO061-2 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality:r
% Format : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s
% Computer : art03.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 unknown
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 1000MB
% OS : Linux 2.4.22-21mdk-i686-up-4GB
% CPULimit : 600s
% Result : Timeout 607.2s
% Output : None
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----NO SOLUTION OUTPUT BY SYSTEM
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
%
% Gandalf c-2.6 r1 starting to prove: /home/graph/tptp/TSTP/PreparedTPTP/otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)---add_equality:r/GEO/GEO061-2+eq_r.in
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
%
% prove-all-passes started
%
% detected problem class: neq
% detected subclass: medium
%
% strategies selected:
% (hyper 25 #f 3 15)
% (binary-unit 9 #f 3 15)
% (binary-double 9 #f 3 15)
% (binary-double 15 #f)
% (binary-double 15 #t)
% (binary 50 #t 3 15)
% (binary-order 25 #f 3 15)
% (binary-posweight-order 101 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-big-order 25 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-small-order 9 #f)
% (binary-order-sos 50 #t)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 25 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 50 #f)
% (binary-order 50 #f)
% (hyper-order 30 #f)
% (binary 112 #t)
%
%
% SOS clause
% -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)) | -between(u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1) | -equidistant(v,w,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
% was split for some strategies as:
% -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)).
% -between(u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
% -equidistant(v,w,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
%
% Starting a split proof attempt with 3 components.
%
% Split component 1 started.
%
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split:
% -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)) | -between(u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1) | -equidistant(v,w,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
% Split part used next: -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)).
% END OF PROOFPART
% **** EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED ****
%
%
% timer checkpoints: c(23,40,1,46,0,1,129855,4,962,149519,5,1202,149520,5,1202,149520,1,1202,149520,50,1202,149520,40,1202,149543,0,1202,165468,3,1403,169577,4,1503,176612,5,1603,176613,5,1603,176614,1,1603,176614,50,1604,176614,40,1604,176637,0,1604,188491,3,1808,191337,4,1940,193646,5,2011,193647,5,2011,193647,1,2011,193647,50,2012,193647,40,2012,193670,0,2012,209675,3,2368,214387,4,2538,221969,5,2713,221971,5,2713,221972,1,2713,221972,50,2714,221972,40,2714,221995,0,2714,239960,3,3067,243240,4,3240,246747,5,3415,246747,1,3415,246747,50,3415,246747,40,3415,246770,0,3415,271857,3,4622,273094,4,5216,275449,5,5816,275450,5,5816,275451,1,5816,275451,50,5816,275451,40,5816,275474,0,5816,285927,3,6418,290645,4,6722,297632,5,7019,297633,5,7020,297633,1,7020,297633,50,7020,297633,40,7020,297656,0,7020,420387,3,9521,461287,4,10771,469563,5,12021,469564,5,12022,469565,1,12022,469565,50,12025,469565,40,12025,469588,0,12025,518457,3,12630,519549,4,12926,537258,5,13226,537260,1,13226,537260,50,13229,537260,40,13229,537283,0,13229,565498,3,13430,566321,4,13530,577172,5,13630,577174,5,13630,577174,1,13630,577174,50,13632,577174,40,13632,577197,0,13632,588813,3,15024,594559,4,15434,607740,5,16033,607741,5,16033,607742,1,16033,607742,50,16034,607742,40,16034,607765,0,16034,652001,3,16635,669149,4,16935,686393,5,17235,686394,5,17235,686395,1,17236,686395,50,17237,686395,40,17237,686418,0,17237,722432,3,18439,722968,4,19038,739105,5,19638,739106,1,19639,739106,50,19640,739106,40,19640,739129,0,19640,757737,3,21036,761890,4,21442,774933,5,22041,774934,5,22041,774934,1,22041,774934,50,22042,774934,40,22042,774957,0,22042,1067875,4,23296,1077177,5,23543,1077178,1,23543,1077178,50,23543,1077178,40,23543,1077201,0,23543,1140316,3,26794,1141881,4,28419,1144720,5,30045,1144721,1,30045,1144721,50,30046,1144721,40,30046,1144721,40,30046,1144744,0,30046)
%
%
% START OF PROOF
% 1144723 [] equidistant(X,Y,Y,X).
% 1144724 [] -equidistant(X,Y,V,W) | -equidistant(X,Y,Z,U) | equidistant(Z,U,V,W).
% 1144727 [] equidistant(X,extension(Y,X,Z,U),Z,U).
% 1144741 [] equal(insertion(X,Y,Z,U),extension(extension(Y,X,lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2),X,Z,U)).
% 1144742 [] -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)).
% 1144746 [hyper:1144724,1144723,1144723] equidistant(X,Y,X,Y).
% 1144913 [hyper:1144724,1144727,1144746] equidistant(X,Y,Z,extension(U,Z,X,Y)).
% 1217638 [para:1144741.1.2,1144913.1.4,slowcut:1144742] contradiction
% END OF PROOF
%
% Proof found by the following strategy:
%
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% Split component 2 started.
%
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split:
% -equidistant(u,v,u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v)) | -between(u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1) | -equidistant(v,w,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
% Split part used next: -between(u1,insertion(u1,w1,u,v),w1).
% END OF PROOFPART
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 2
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 2
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 16
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 15
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 32
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring smaller arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 2
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 16
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit paramodulation strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 16
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 16
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using hyperresolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% seconds given: 10
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 240
%
% Wow, gandalf-wrapper got a signal XCPU
% Xcpu signal caught by Gandalf: stopping
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------