TSTP Solution File: GRP549-1 by Moca---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Moca---0.1
% Problem : GRP549-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : moca.sh %s
% Computer : n007.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 10:56:12 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 0.41s
% Output : Proof 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : GRP549-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : moca.sh %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n007.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 : Tue Jun 14 09:55:24 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/0.41 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/0.41 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.22/0.41 The input problem is unsatisfiable because
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 [1] the following set of Horn clauses is unsatisfiable:
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 divide(divide(identity, A), divide(divide(divide(B, A), C), B)) = C
% 0.22/0.41 multiply(A, B) = divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(A) = divide(identity, A)
% 0.22/0.41 identity = divide(A, A)
% 0.22/0.41 multiply(inverse(a1), a1) = multiply(inverse(b1), b1) ==> \bottom
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 This holds because
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 [2] the following E entails the following G (Claessen-Smallbone's transformation (2018)):
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 E:
% 0.22/0.41 divide(divide(identity, A), divide(divide(divide(B, A), C), B)) = C
% 0.22/0.41 f1(multiply(inverse(a1), a1)) = true__
% 0.22/0.41 f1(multiply(inverse(b1), b1)) = false__
% 0.22/0.41 identity = divide(A, A)
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(A) = divide(identity, A)
% 0.22/0.41 multiply(A, B) = divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.22/0.41 G:
% 0.22/0.41 true__ = false__
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 This holds because
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 [3] E entails the following ordered TRS and the lhs and rhs of G join by the TRS:
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(Y0), inverse(Y1)) = divide(Y1, Y0)
% 0.22/0.41 divide(A, A) -> identity
% 0.22/0.41 divide(Y1, identity) -> inverse(inverse(Y1))
% 0.22/0.41 divide(divide(identity, A), divide(divide(divide(B, A), C), B)) -> C
% 0.22/0.41 divide(identity, A) -> inverse(A)
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(Y0), divide(divide(divide(Y1, Y0), Y2), Y1)) -> Y2
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(Y0), divide(divide(inverse(Y0), Y2), identity)) -> Y2
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(Y0), divide(inverse(Y2), Y0)) -> Y2
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(Y0), identity) -> inverse(Y0)
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(inverse(X1)), inverse(inverse(X0))) -> divide(X1, X0)
% 0.22/0.41 divide(inverse(inverse(Y1)), identity) -> Y1
% 0.22/0.41 f1(identity) -> false__
% 0.22/0.41 f1(multiply(inverse(a1), a1)) -> true__
% 0.22/0.41 f1(multiply(inverse(b1), b1)) -> false__
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(divide(divide(divide(Y1, identity), Y2), Y1)) -> Y2
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(divide(inverse(Y1), identity)) -> Y1
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(identity) -> identity
% 0.22/0.41 inverse(inverse(inverse(inverse(Y1)))) -> Y1
% 0.22/0.41 multiply(A, B) -> divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.22/0.41 true__ -> false__
% 0.22/0.41 with the LPO induced by
% 0.22/0.41 a1 > b1 > f1 > multiply > divide > identity > inverse > true__ > false__
% 0.22/0.41
% 0.22/0.41 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.22/0.41
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------