%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SRASS---0.1
% Problem  : KLE002+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s

% Computer : art01.cs.miami.edu
% Model    : i686 i686
% CPU      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory   : 2018MB
% OS       : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Dec 29 07:29:39 EST 2010

% Result   : Theorem 1.12s
% Output   : Solution 1.12s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    : 0

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% Reading problem from /tmp/SystemOnTPTP23824/KLE002+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM       ... 
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP23824/KLE002+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP23824/KLE002+1.tptp
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% TreeLimitedRun: /home/graph/tptp/Systems/EP---1.2/eproof --print-statistics -xAuto -tAuto --cpu-limit=60 --proof-time-unlimited --memory-limit=Auto --tstp-in --tstp-out /tmp/SRASS.s.p 
% TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 60s
% TreeLimitedRun: WC  time limit is 120s
% TreeLimitedRun: PID is 23920
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% # Preprocessing time     : 0.011 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(2, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(leq(X1,X2)<=>addition(X1,X2)=X2),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', order)).
% fof(4, axiom,![X3]:![X2]:![X1]:addition(X1,addition(X2,X3))=addition(addition(X1,X2),X3),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', additive_associativity)).
% fof(5, axiom,![X1]:addition(X1,X1)=X1,file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', additive_idempotence)).
% fof(7, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:multiplication(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(multiplication(X1,X3),multiplication(X2,X3)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', left_distributivity)).
% fof(13, conjecture,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:(leq(X4,X5)=>leq(multiplication(X4,X6),multiplication(X5,X6))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', goals)).
% fof(14, negated_conjecture,~(![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:(leq(X4,X5)=>leq(multiplication(X4,X6),multiplication(X5,X6)))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[13])).
% fof(17, plain,![X1]:![X2]:((~(leq(X1,X2))|addition(X1,X2)=X2)&(~(addition(X1,X2)=X2)|leq(X1,X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[2])).
% fof(18, plain,![X3]:![X4]:((~(leq(X3,X4))|addition(X3,X4)=X4)&(~(addition(X3,X4)=X4)|leq(X3,X4))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[17])).
% cnf(19,plain,(leq(X1,X2)|addition(X1,X2)!=X2),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[18])).
% cnf(20,plain,(addition(X1,X2)=X2|~leq(X1,X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(23, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:addition(X6,addition(X5,X4))=addition(addition(X6,X5),X4),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[4])).
% cnf(24,plain,(addition(X1,addition(X2,X3))=addition(addition(X1,X2),X3)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[23])).
% fof(25, plain,![X2]:addition(X2,X2)=X2,inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[5])).
% cnf(26,plain,(addition(X1,X1)=X1),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[25])).
% fof(29, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:multiplication(addition(X4,X5),X6)=addition(multiplication(X4,X6),multiplication(X5,X6)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[7])).
% cnf(30,plain,(multiplication(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(multiplication(X1,X3),multiplication(X2,X3))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[29])).
% fof(41, negated_conjecture,?[X4]:?[X5]:?[X6]:(leq(X4,X5)&~(leq(multiplication(X4,X6),multiplication(X5,X6)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[14])).
% fof(42, negated_conjecture,?[X7]:?[X8]:?[X9]:(leq(X7,X8)&~(leq(multiplication(X7,X9),multiplication(X8,X9)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[41])).
% fof(43, negated_conjecture,(leq(esk1_0,esk2_0)&~(leq(multiplication(esk1_0,esk3_0),multiplication(esk2_0,esk3_0)))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[42])).
% cnf(44,negated_conjecture,(~leq(multiplication(esk1_0,esk3_0),multiplication(esk2_0,esk3_0))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[43])).
% cnf(45,negated_conjecture,(leq(esk1_0,esk2_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[43])).
% cnf(56,negated_conjecture,(addition(esk1_0,esk2_0)=esk2_0),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[20,45,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(106,plain,(addition(X1,X2)=addition(X1,addition(X1,X2))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[24,26,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(151,plain,(leq(X1,addition(X1,X2))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[19,106,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(622,plain,(leq(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(addition(X1,X3),X2))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[151,30,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(3017,negated_conjecture,(leq(multiplication(esk1_0,X1),multiplication(esk2_0,X1))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[622,56,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(3083,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[44,3017,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(3084,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[3083,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(3085,negated_conjecture,($false),3084,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses                  : 236
% # ...of these trivial                : 53
% # ...subsumed                        : 93
% # ...remaining for further processing: 90
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed                  : 0
% # Backward-rewritten                 : 1
% # Generated clauses                  : 1816
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 1037
% # Contextual simplify-reflections    : 0
% # Paramodulations                    : 1815
% # Factorizations                     : 0
% # Equation resolutions               : 1
% # Current number of processed clauses: 89
% #    Positive orientable unit clauses: 65
% #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% #    Negative unit clauses           : 0
% #    Non-unit-clauses                : 21
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 816
% # ...number of literals in the above : 1085
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 355
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 355
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound  : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts        : 137
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes       : 73
% # Backwards rewriting index:    89 leaves,   1.73+/-1.412 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index:           46 leaves,   1.52+/-0.926 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index:           77 leaves,   1.75+/-1.452 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time              : 0.042 s
% # System time            : 0.004 s
% # Total time             : 0.046 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.18 CPU 0.27 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.18 CPU 0.27 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP23824/KLE002+1.tptp
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------