TSTP Solution File: LCL121-1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : LCL121-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n014.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 : Sun Jul 17 14:28:04 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.72s 2.91s
% Output : Refutation 2.72s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : LCL121-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Jul 2 16:57:55 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.12/0.36 The process was started by sandbox on n014.cluster.edu,
% 0.12/0.36 Sat Jul 2 16:57:55 2022
% 0.12/0.36 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 4101.
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.12/0.36 set(auto).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.12/0.36 clear(print_given).
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 list(usable).
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=1, equality=0, symmetry=0, max_lits=3.
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 This is a Horn set without equality. The strategy will
% 0.12/0.36 be hyperresolution, with satellites in sos and nuclei
% 0.12/0.36 in usable.
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.12/0.36 dependent: clear(order_hyper).
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 ------------> process usable:
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 ------------> process sos:
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.12/0.38 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.12/0.38 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.12/0.38 number of clauses in intial UL: 2
% 0.12/0.38 number of clauses initially in problem: 3
% 0.12/0.38 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 66
% 0.12/0.38 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 100
% 0.12/0.38 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.12/0.38 absolute distinct symbol count: 5
% 0.12/0.38 distinct predicate count: 1
% 0.12/0.38 distinct function count: 1
% 0.12/0.38 distinct constant count: 3
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38
% 0.12/0.38 =========== start of search ===========
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Changing weight limit from 60 to 52.
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Model 3 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Model 4 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 1.64/1.85
% 1.64/1.85 Resetting weight limit to 52 after 105 givens.
% 1.64/1.85
% 2.00/2.19
% 2.00/2.19
% 2.00/2.19 Changing weight limit from 52 to 32.
% 2.00/2.19
% 2.00/2.19 Resetting weight limit to 32 after 110 givens.
% 2.00/2.19
% 2.00/2.24
% 2.00/2.24
% 2.00/2.24 Changing weight limit from 32 to 28.
% 2.00/2.24
% 2.00/2.24 Resetting weight limit to 28 after 115 givens.
% 2.00/2.24
% 2.16/2.35
% 2.16/2.35
% 2.16/2.35 Changing weight limit from 28 to 24.
% 2.16/2.35
% 2.16/2.35 Resetting weight limit to 24 after 120 givens.
% 2.16/2.35
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 -------- PROOF --------
% 2.72/2.91 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.72/2.91 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 ----> UNIT CONFLICT at 2.50 sec ----> 8529 [binary,8528.1,2.1] {-} $F.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 Length of proof is 26. Level of proof is 17.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 2.72/2.91 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.72/2.91 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 1 [] {+} -is_a_theorem(equivalent(A,B))| -is_a_theorem(A)|is_a_theorem(B).
% 2.72/2.91 2 [] {+} -is_a_theorem(equivalent(a,equivalent(a,equivalent(equivalent(b,equivalent(c,c)),b)))).
% 2.72/2.91 3 [] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(A,equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,C),equivalent(equivalent(B,D),equivalent(C,D)))))).
% 2.72/2.91 4 [hyper,3,1,3] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,C),equivalent(equivalent(B,D),equivalent(C,D))))),equivalent(equivalent(E,F),equivalent(equivalent(E,G),equivalent(F,G))))).
% 2.72/2.91 6 [hyper,4,1,3] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(equivalent(A,C),equivalent(B,C)))).
% 2.72/2.91 7 [hyper,6,1,6] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,D),equivalent(B,D)),C))).
% 2.72/2.91 14 [hyper,7,1,6] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(C,B)),equivalent(equivalent(A,D),equivalent(C,D)))).
% 2.72/2.91 17 [hyper,14,1,14] {+} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C),equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C))).
% 2.72/2.91 18 [hyper,14,1,7] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C),equivalent(equivalent(D,B),C)),equivalent(equivalent(A,E),equivalent(D,E)))).
% 2.72/2.91 21 [hyper,14,1,4] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,C),equivalent(D,C))),E),equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(B,D)),E))).
% 2.72/2.91 25 [hyper,17,1,7] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C),equivalent(D,C)),equivalent(equivalent(A,B),D))).
% 2.72/2.91 30 [hyper,25,1,17] {+} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(A,B))).
% 2.72/2.91 31 [hyper,25,1,4] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,C),equivalent(D,C))),equivalent(A,equivalent(B,D)))).
% 2.72/2.91 32 [hyper,30,1,7] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(C,B)),equivalent(A,C))).
% 2.72/2.91 35 [hyper,32,1,6] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(C,B)),D),equivalent(equivalent(A,C),D))).
% 2.72/2.91 37 [hyper,32,1,30] {+} is_a_theorem(equivalent(A,A)).
% 2.72/2.91 40 [hyper,31,1,31] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(equivalent(C,D),equivalent(B,D))),equivalent(A,C))).
% 2.72/2.91 43 [hyper,31,1,7] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(C,equivalent(B,D))),equivalent(equivalent(A,D),C))).
% 2.72/2.91 48 [hyper,35,1,35] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),C),equivalent(equivalent(A,D),equivalent(C,equivalent(D,B))))).
% 2.72/2.91 49 [hyper,35,1,31] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(C,B)),equivalent(D,C)),equivalent(A,D))).
% 2.72/2.91 121 [hyper,49,1,31] {+} is_a_theorem(equivalent(A,equivalent(A,equivalent(B,B)))).
% 2.72/2.91 127 [hyper,121,1,14] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(C,C)),B))).
% 2.72/2.91 211 [hyper,127,1,37] {+} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(B,B)),A)).
% 2.72/2.91 230 [hyper,211,1,43] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,B),C)),C),A)).
% 2.72/2.91 231 [hyper,211,1,40] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,B),equivalent(equivalent(C,C),B)),A)).
% 2.72/2.91 353 [hyper,230,1,48] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,B),C)),D),equivalent(A,equivalent(D,C)))).
% 2.72/2.91 1332 [hyper,21,1,231] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(B,C)),equivalent(C,B)),A)).
% 2.72/2.91 1389 [hyper,1332,1,18] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(A,equivalent(B,C)),equivalent(C,B)),D),equivalent(A,D))).
% 2.72/2.91 8528 [hyper,1389,1,353] {-} is_a_theorem(equivalent(A,equivalent(A,equivalent(equivalent(B,equivalent(C,C)),B)))).
% 2.72/2.91 8529 [binary,8528.1,2.1] {-} $F.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.72/2.91 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 ============ end of search ============
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 true clauses given 20 (10.1%)
% 2.72/2.91 false clauses given 178
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 FALSE TRUE
% 2.72/2.91 16 111 130
% 2.72/2.91 20 2038 390
% 2.72/2.91 24 620 104
% 2.72/2.91 tot: 2769 624 (18.4% true)
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 Model 4 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 2.72/2.91
% 2.72/2.91 Process 4101 finished Sat Jul 2 16:57:57 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------