TSTP Solution File: KLE006+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : KLE006+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 : art02.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 07:30:12 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 0.88s
% Output : Solution 0.88s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP6378/KLE006+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ... found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP6378/KLE006+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP6378/KLE006+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 6475
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.013 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(1, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:addition(X1,X2)=addition(X2,X1),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', additive_commutativity)).
% fof(5, axiom,![X4]:![X5]:(test(X4)=>(c(X4)=X5<=>complement(X4,X5))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', test_3)).
% fof(13, axiom,![X4]:![X5]:(complement(X5,X4)<=>((multiplication(X4,X5)=zero&multiplication(X5,X4)=zero)&addition(X4,X5)=one)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', test_2)).
% fof(17, conjecture,![X4]:(test(X4)=>one=addition(X4,c(X4))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', goals)).
% fof(18, negated_conjecture,~(![X4]:(test(X4)=>one=addition(X4,c(X4)))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[17])).
% fof(20, plain,![X3]:![X4]:addition(X3,X4)=addition(X4,X3),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[1])).
% cnf(21,plain,(addition(X1,X2)=addition(X2,X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[20])).
% fof(29, plain,![X4]:![X5]:(~(test(X4))|((~(c(X4)=X5)|complement(X4,X5))&(~(complement(X4,X5))|c(X4)=X5))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[5])).
% fof(30, plain,![X6]:![X7]:(~(test(X6))|((~(c(X6)=X7)|complement(X6,X7))&(~(complement(X6,X7))|c(X6)=X7))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[29])).
% fof(31, plain,![X6]:![X7]:(((~(c(X6)=X7)|complement(X6,X7))|~(test(X6)))&((~(complement(X6,X7))|c(X6)=X7)|~(test(X6)))),inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[30])).
% cnf(33,plain,(complement(X1,X2)|~test(X1)|c(X1)!=X2),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[31])).
% fof(52, plain,![X4]:![X5]:((~(complement(X5,X4))|((multiplication(X4,X5)=zero&multiplication(X5,X4)=zero)&addition(X4,X5)=one))&(((~(multiplication(X4,X5)=zero)|~(multiplication(X5,X4)=zero))|~(addition(X4,X5)=one))|complement(X5,X4))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[13])).
% fof(53, plain,![X6]:![X7]:((~(complement(X7,X6))|((multiplication(X6,X7)=zero&multiplication(X7,X6)=zero)&addition(X6,X7)=one))&(((~(multiplication(X6,X7)=zero)|~(multiplication(X7,X6)=zero))|~(addition(X6,X7)=one))|complement(X7,X6))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[52])).
% fof(54, plain,![X6]:![X7]:((((multiplication(X6,X7)=zero|~(complement(X7,X6)))&(multiplication(X7,X6)=zero|~(complement(X7,X6))))&(addition(X6,X7)=one|~(complement(X7,X6))))&(((~(multiplication(X6,X7)=zero)|~(multiplication(X7,X6)=zero))|~(addition(X6,X7)=one))|complement(X7,X6))),inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[53])).
% cnf(56,plain,(addition(X2,X1)=one|~complement(X1,X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[54])).
% fof(67, negated_conjecture,?[X4]:(test(X4)&~(one=addition(X4,c(X4)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(68, negated_conjecture,?[X5]:(test(X5)&~(one=addition(X5,c(X5)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[67])).
% fof(69, negated_conjecture,(test(esk2_0)&~(one=addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0)))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[68])).
% cnf(70,negated_conjecture,(one!=addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[69])).
% cnf(71,negated_conjecture,(test(esk2_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[69])).
% cnf(77,plain,(complement(X1,c(X1))|~test(X1)),inference(er,[status(thm)],[33,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(257,negated_conjecture,(complement(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[77,71,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(329,negated_conjecture,(addition(c(esk2_0),esk2_0)=one),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[56,257,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(382,negated_conjecture,(addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))=one),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[329,21,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(383,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(sr,[status(thm)],[382,70,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(384,negated_conjecture,($false),383,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 73
% # ...of these trivial : 4
% # ...subsumed : 9
% # ...remaining for further processing: 60
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 2
% # Generated clauses : 175
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 110
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 170
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 5
% # Current number of processed clauses: 57
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 32
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% # Negative unit clauses : 1
% # Non-unit-clauses : 23
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 57
% # ...number of literals in the above : 84
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 24
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 17
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 12
% # Backwards rewriting index: 59 leaves, 1.24+/-0.870 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 32 leaves, 1.09+/-0.384 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 43 leaves, 1.19+/-0.581 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.015 s
% # System time : 0.004 s
% # Total time : 0.019 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.10 CPU 0.18 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.10 CPU 0.18 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP6378/KLE006+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------