TSTP Solution File: HWV014-1 by SPASS---3.9
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SPASS---3.9
% Problem : HWV014-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : run_spass %d %s
% Computer : n003.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 19:14:47 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.43s
% Output : Refutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : HWV014-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.06/0.13 % Command : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n003.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 : Fri Jun 17 04:44:12 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 SPASS V 3.9
% 0.19/0.43 SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.19/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.43 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.43 SPASS derived 60 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 0 splits and kept 107 clauses.
% 0.19/0.43 SPASS allocated 75817 KBytes.
% 0.19/0.43 SPASS spent 0:00:00.08 on the problem.
% 0.19/0.43 0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.19/0.43 0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.19/0.43 0:00:00.00 for inferences.
% 0.19/0.43 0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.19/0.43 0:00:00.01 for the reduction.
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43
% 0.19/0.43 Here is a proof with depth 1, length 10 :
% 0.19/0.43 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.19/0.43 1[0:Inp] || -> gt(level(x_139),n0)*l.
% 0.19/0.43 2[0:Inp] || -> p_Rd(x_139)*.
% 0.19/0.43 3[0:Inp] || p_Wr(x_139)* -> .
% 0.19/0.43 4[0:Inp] || p_Reset(x_139)* -> .
% 0.19/0.43 5[0:Inp] || equal(minus(level(x_139),n1),level(plus(x_139,n1)))** -> .
% 0.19/0.43 26[0:Inp] || -> equal(int_level(u),level(u))**.
% 0.19/0.43 76[0:Inp] p_Rd(u) || gt(int_level(u),n0) -> p_Reset(u) p_Wr(u) equal(int_level(plus(u,n1)),minus(int_level(u),n1))**.
% 0.19/0.43 147[0:Rew:26.0,76.4,26.0,76.4,26.0,76.1] p_Rd(u) || gt(level(u),n0) -> p_Wr(u) p_Reset(u) equal(minus(level(u),n1),level(plus(u,n1)))**.
% 0.19/0.43 231[0:Res:1.0,147.1] p_Rd(x_139) || -> p_Reset(x_139) p_Wr(x_139) equal(minus(level(x_139),n1),level(plus(x_139,n1)))**.
% 0.19/0.43 253[0:MRR:231.0,231.1,231.2,231.3,2.0,4.0,3.0,5.0] || -> .
% 0.19/0.43 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.19/0.43 Formulae used in the proof : quest_1 quest_2 quest_3 quest_4 quest_5 axiom_21 axiom_71
% 0.19/0.43
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------