TSTP Solution File: LAT276-2 by Gandalf---c-2.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem : LAT276-2 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : add_equality:r
% Format : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s
% Computer : art05.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2795MHz
% Memory : 1003MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4
% CPULimit : 600s
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.0s
% Output : Assurance 0.0s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----NO SOLUTION OUTPUT BY SYSTEM
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
%
% Gandalf c-2.6 r1 starting to prove: /tmp/SystemOnTPTP16387/LAT/LAT276-2+eq_r.in
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
%
% prove-all-passes started
%
% detected problem class: neq
% detected subclass: medium
%
% strategies selected:
% (hyper 25 #f 3 7)
% (binary-unit 9 #f 3 7)
% (binary-double 9 #f 3 7)
% (binary-double 15 #f)
% (binary-double 15 #t)
% (binary 50 #t 3 7)
% (binary-order 25 #f 3 7)
% (binary-posweight-order 101 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-big-order 25 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-small-order 9 #f)
% (binary-order-sos 50 #t)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 25 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 50 #f)
% (binary-order 50 #f)
% (hyper-order 30 #f)
% (binary 112 #t)
%
%
% ********* EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED *********
%
%
% timer checkpoints: c(13,40,0,26,0,0)
%
%
% START OF PROOF
% 15 [] -c_lessequals(X,Y,tc_set(Z)) | -c_in(U,X,Z) | c_in(U,Y,Z).
% 17 [] c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(X,v_cl,t_a),Y,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | c_in(v_sko__4m^p(Y,X,v_r),X,t_a) | -c_lessequals(X,v_^a,tc_set(t_a)) | -c_in(Y,v_^a,t_a).
% 18 [] c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(X,v_cl,t_a),Y,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_in(c_^pair(v_sko__4m^p(Y,X,v_r),Y,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_lessequals(X,v_^a,tc_set(t_a)) | -c_in(Y,v_^a,t_a).
% 19 [] c_in(c_^pair(X,c_^tarski_^olub(Y,v_cl,t_a),t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_lessequals(Y,v_^a,tc_set(t_a)) | -c_in(X,Y,t_a).
% 21 [] c_lessequals(v_^s,v_^a,tc_set(t_a)).
% 22 [] -c_in(c_^pair(v_xa,c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | c_in(c_^pair(X,v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_in(X,v_^s,t_a).
% 23 [] c_in(v_xa,v_^a,t_a) | c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a).
% 24 [] -c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a).
% 25 [] -c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_in(c_^pair(v_xa,c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)).
% 26 [] c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a) | c_in(c_^pair(X,v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | -c_in(X,v_^s,t_a).
% 35 [hyper:15,23,21] c_in(v_xa,v_^a,t_a).
% 38 [hyper:17,23,21,binarycut:24] c_in(v_sko__4m^p(v_xa,v_^s,v_r),v_^s,t_a) | c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a).
% 44 [hyper:17,35,21] c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | c_in(v_sko__4m^p(v_xa,v_^s,v_r),v_^s,t_a).
% 50 [hyper:26,38] c_in(c_^pair(v_sko__4m^p(v_xa,v_^s,v_r),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) | c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a).
% 78 [hyper:18,50,cut:21,cut:35,binarycut:24] c_in(v_xa,v_^s,t_a).
% 84 [hyper:19,78,cut:21] c_in(c_^pair(v_xa,c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)).
% 100 [hyper:25,44,cut:84] c_in(v_sko__4m^p(v_xa,v_^s,v_r),v_^s,t_a).
% 105 [hyper:22,100,cut:84] c_in(c_^pair(v_sko__4m^p(v_xa,v_^s,v_r),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)).
% 118 [hyper:18,105,cut:21,cut:35] c_in(c_^pair(c_^tarski_^olub(v_^s,v_cl,t_a),v_xa,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)).
% 120 [hyper:25,118,cut:84] contradiction
% END OF PROOF
%
% Proof found by the following strategy:
%
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 25
%
%
% ***GANDALF_FOUND_A_REFUTATION***
%
% Global statistics over all passes:
%
% given clauses: 23
% derived clauses: 124
% kept clauses: 24
% kept size sum: 397
% kept mid-nuclei: 54
% kept new demods: 2
% forw unit-subs: 22
% forw double-subs: 10
% forw overdouble-subs: 0
% backward subs: 11
% fast unit cutoff: 15
% full unit cutoff: 0
% dbl unit cutoff: 4
% real runtime : 0.3
% process. runtime: 0.0
% specific non-discr-tree subsumption statistics:
% tried: 27
% length fails: 0
% strength fails: 7
% predlist fails: 9
% aux str. fails: 0
% by-lit fails: 0
% full subs tried: 11
% full subs fail: 11
%
% ; program args: ("/home/graph/tptp/Systems/Gandalf---c-2.6/gandalf" "-time" "600" "/tmp/SystemOnTPTP16387/LAT/LAT276-2+eq_r.in")
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------