TSTP Solution File: GRP615-1 by Prover9---1109a
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Prover9---1109a
% Problem : GRP615-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% Computer : n012.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 11:19:52 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.83s 1.09s
% Output : Refutation 0.83s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : GRP615-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.04/0.13 % Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Jun 13 12:20:10 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== Prover9 ===============================
% 0.83/1.09 Prover9 (32) version 2009-11A, November 2009.
% 0.83/1.09 Process 29332 was started by sandbox on n012.cluster.edu,
% 0.83/1.09 Mon Jun 13 12:20:11 2022
% 0.83/1.09 The command was "/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/prover9 -t 300 -f /tmp/Prover9_29179_n012.cluster.edu".
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of head ===========================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== INPUT =================================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % Reading from file /tmp/Prover9_29179_n012.cluster.edu
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.83/1.09 set(auto2).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(auto).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_inference).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_setup).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto_setup) -> set(predicate_elim).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto_setup) -> assign(eq_defs, unfold).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_limits).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(max_weight, "100.000").
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(sos_limit, 20000).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_denials).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto) -> set(auto_process).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(new_constants, 1).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(fold_denial_max, 3).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_weight, "200.000").
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_hours, 1).
% 0.83/1.09 % assign(max_hours, 1) -> assign(max_seconds, 3600).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_seconds, 0).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_minutes, 5).
% 0.83/1.09 % assign(max_minutes, 5) -> assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(sort_initial_sos).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(sos_limit, -1).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(lrs_ticks, 3000).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_megs, 400).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> assign(stats, some).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(echo_input).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> set(quiet).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_initial_clauses).
% 0.83/1.09 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_given).
% 0.83/1.09 assign(lrs_ticks,-1).
% 0.83/1.09 assign(sos_limit,10000).
% 0.83/1.09 assign(order,kbo).
% 0.83/1.09 set(lex_order_vars).
% 0.83/1.09 clear(print_given).
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % formulas(sos). % not echoed (3 formulas)
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of input ==========================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % From the command line: assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== PROCESS NON-CLAUSAL FORMULAS ==========
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % Formulas that are not ordinary clauses:
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of process non-clausal formulas ===
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== PROCESS INITIAL CLAUSES ===============
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== PREDICATE ELIMINATION =================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end predicate elimination =============
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 Auto_denials:
% 0.83/1.09 % copying label prove_these_axioms_3 to answer in negative clause
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 Term ordering decisions:
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % Assigning unary symbol inverse kb_weight 0 and highest precedence (7).
% 0.83/1.09 Function symbol KB weights: a3=1. b3=1. c3=1. double_divide=1. multiply=1. inverse=0.
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of process initial clauses ========
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== CLAUSES FOR SEARCH ====================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of clauses for search =============
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== SEARCH ================================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % Starting search at 0.01 seconds.
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== PROOF =================================
% 0.83/1.09 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.83/1.09 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % Proof 1 at 0.09 (+ 0.00) seconds: prove_these_axioms_3.
% 0.83/1.09 % Length of proof is 42.
% 0.83/1.09 % Level of proof is 19.
% 0.83/1.09 % Maximum clause weight is 35.000.
% 0.83/1.09 % Given clauses 48.
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 1 multiply(A,B) = inverse(double_divide(B,A)) # label(multiply) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.83/1.09 2 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))),C)),double_divide(A,C)) = B # label(single_axiom) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.83/1.09 3 multiply(multiply(a3,b3),c3) != multiply(a3,multiply(b3,c3)) # label(prove_these_axioms_3) # label(negated_conjecture) # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [assumption].
% 0.83/1.09 4 inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(c3,b3)),a3)) != inverse(double_divide(c3,inverse(double_divide(b3,a3)))) # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [copy(3),rewrite([1(3),1(6),1(11),1(13)]),flip(a)].
% 0.83/1.09 5 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(inverse(double_divide(B,inverse(A))),double_divide(B,inverse(C)))) = C. [para(2(a,1),2(a,1,1,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 6 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))),C)),inverse(D))),double_divide(A,C))),B) = D. [para(2(a,1),2(a,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 22 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(A),inverse(B))),A) = B. [para(6(a,1),6(a,1,1,1,1,1)),rewrite([2(9)])].
% 0.83/1.09 23 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))),C)),inverse(D))),double_divide(A,C))),inverse(E))),B)),inverse(F))),D)),E) = F. [para(6(a,1),6(a,1,1,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 25 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(inverse(B),B)) = A. [para(22(a,1),2(a,1,1,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 35 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(inverse(inverse(B)),inverse(A))) = B. [para(22(a,1),22(a,1,1,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 40 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(A),A)),inverse(B)) = B. [para(25(a,1),22(a,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 63 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(inverse(A),B)) = B. [para(40(a,1),5(a,1,2,1,1)),rewrite([40(7)])].
% 0.83/1.09 75 double_divide(inverse(A),A) = double_divide(inverse(B),B). [para(25(a,1),63(a,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 76 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(A),A)),B) = inverse(B). [para(40(a,1),63(a,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 93 double_divide(inverse(A),A) = c_0. [new_symbol(75)].
% 0.83/1.09 96 double_divide(inverse(c_0),inverse(A)) = A. [back_rewrite(40),rewrite([93(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 97 double_divide(inverse(c_0),A) = inverse(A). [back_rewrite(76),rewrite([93(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 102 inverse(inverse(A)) = A. [back_rewrite(96),rewrite([97(4)])].
% 0.83/1.09 114 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(B,inverse(A))) = B. [back_rewrite(35),rewrite([102(3)])].
% 0.83/1.09 130 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(A),B)),A) = inverse(B). [para(102(a,1),22(a,1,1,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 131 double_divide(A,double_divide(A,B)) = B. [para(102(a,1),63(a,1,1)),rewrite([102(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 132 double_divide(A,inverse(A)) = c_0. [para(102(a,1),93(a,1,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 142 inverse(c_0) = c_0. [para(97(a,1),93(a,1))].
% 0.83/1.09 143 double_divide(c_0,A) = inverse(A). [back_rewrite(97),rewrite([142(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 147 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))),C)),inverse(D))),double_divide(A,C))),inverse(E))),B)),F)),D)),E) = inverse(F). [para(102(a,1),23(a,1,1,1,1,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 151 inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))),C)),inverse(D))),double_divide(A,C))),inverse(E))),B)) = double_divide(D,E). [para(132(a,1),23(a,1,1,1,1,1)),rewrite([142(2),143(2),102(2)]),flip(a)].
% 0.83/1.09 157 double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(double_divide(A,B),C)),A)),B) = inverse(C). [back_rewrite(147),rewrite([151(16)])].
% 0.83/1.09 159 double_divide(A,double_divide(B,A)) = B. [para(102(a,1),114(a,1,1)),rewrite([102(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 160 double_divide(inverse(A),B) = double_divide(B,inverse(A)). [para(114(a,1),131(a,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 162 double_divide(A,inverse(double_divide(B,inverse(double_divide(double_divide(B,A),C))))) = inverse(C). [back_rewrite(157),rewrite([160(4),160(6)])].
% 0.83/1.09 181 double_divide(A,inverse(double_divide(B,inverse(A)))) = inverse(B). [back_rewrite(130),rewrite([160(2),160(4)])].
% 0.83/1.09 212 inverse(double_divide(c3,inverse(double_divide(b3,a3)))) != inverse(double_divide(a3,inverse(double_divide(c3,b3)))) # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [back_rewrite(4),rewrite([160(6)]),flip(a)].
% 0.83/1.09 214 double_divide(A,B) = double_divide(B,A). [para(159(a,1),131(a,1,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 215 inverse(double_divide(c3,inverse(double_divide(a3,b3)))) != inverse(double_divide(a3,inverse(double_divide(b3,c3)))) # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [back_rewrite(212),rewrite([214(4),214(11)])].
% 0.83/1.09 231 double_divide(A,inverse(double_divide(B,inverse(double_divide(C,double_divide(A,B)))))) = inverse(C). [back_rewrite(162),rewrite([214(1),214(2)])].
% 0.83/1.09 235 inverse(double_divide(A,inverse(B))) = double_divide(B,inverse(A)). [para(181(a,1),131(a,1,2)),flip(a)].
% 0.83/1.09 238 double_divide(A,double_divide(inverse(B),double_divide(C,double_divide(A,B)))) = inverse(C). [back_rewrite(231),rewrite([235(5),214(4)])].
% 0.83/1.09 253 double_divide(inverse(c3),double_divide(a3,b3)) != double_divide(inverse(a3),double_divide(b3,c3)) # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [back_rewrite(215),rewrite([235(7),214(6),235(13),214(12)])].
% 0.83/1.09 322 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(B,double_divide(C,A))) = double_divide(C,inverse(B)). [para(238(a,1),131(a,1,2)),flip(a)].
% 0.83/1.09 350 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(B,inverse(C))) = double_divide(C,double_divide(A,B)). [para(322(a,1),131(a,1,2)),rewrite([214(5)])].
% 0.83/1.09 387 double_divide(inverse(A),double_divide(B,C)) = double_divide(inverse(C),double_divide(A,B)). [para(102(a,1),350(a,1,2,2))].
% 0.83/1.09 388 $F # answer(prove_these_axioms_3). [resolve(387,a,253,a(flip))].
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of proof ==========================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== STATISTICS ============================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 Given=48. Generated=1071. Kept=386. proofs=1.
% 0.83/1.09 Usable=18. Sos=63. Demods=73. Limbo=0, Disabled=307. Hints=0.
% 0.83/1.09 Megabytes=0.41.
% 0.83/1.09 User_CPU=0.09, System_CPU=0.00, Wall_clock=0.
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of statistics =====================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 ============================== end of search =========================
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 THEOREM PROVED
% 0.83/1.09 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 Exiting with 1 proof.
% 0.83/1.09
% 0.83/1.09 Process 29332 exit (max_proofs) Mon Jun 13 12:20:11 2022
% 0.83/1.09 Prover9 interrupted
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------