TSTP Solution File: LCL285-3 by Gandalf---c-2.6

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem  : LCL285-3 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v2.3.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality:r
% Format   : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command  : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s

% Computer : art08.cs.miami.edu
% Model    : i686 unknown
% CPU      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory   : 1000MB
% OS       : Linux 2.4.22-21mdk-i686-up-4GB
% CPULimit : 600s

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 109.6s
% Output   : Assurance 109.6s
% 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: /home/graph/tptp/TSTP/PreparedTPTP/otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)---add_equality:r/LCL/LCL285-3+eq_r.in
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
% 
% prove-all-passes started
% 
% detected problem class: heq
% detected subclass: medium
% detected subclass: short
% 
% strategies selected: 
% (binary-posweight-order 57 #f 4 5)
% (binary-unit 28 #f 4 5)
% (binary-double 28 #f 4 5)
% (binary 45 #t 4 5)
% (hyper 11 #t 4 5)
% (hyper 28 #f)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 16 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 22 #f)
% (binary-posweight-order 159 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-big-order 57 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-small-order 11 #f)
% (binary-order 28 #f)
% (binary-unit 45 #f)
% (binary 65 #t)
% 
% 
% ********* EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED *********
% 
% 
% timer checkpoints: c(12,40,1,24,0,1,16007,3,2852,19173,4,4277,22161,5,5702,22163,5,5704,22163,1,5704,22163,50,5706,22163,40,5706,22175,0,5706,31630,3,7108,33692,4,7807,35871,5,8507,35871,5,8508,35871,1,8508,35871,50,8509,35871,40,8509,35883,0,8509,104184,3,9911,126794,4,10612)
% 
% 
% START OF PROOF
% 23629 [?] ?
% 27239 [?] ?
% 35873 [] axiom(implies(or(X,X),X)).
% 35874 [] axiom(implies(X,or(Y,X))).
% 35875 [] axiom(implies(or(X,Y),or(Y,X))).
% 35876 [] axiom(implies(or(X,or(Y,Z)),or(Y,or(X,Z)))).
% 35878 [] equal(implies(X,Y),or(not(X),Y)).
% 35879 [] -axiom(X) | theorem(X).
% 35880 [] -theorem(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(X) | theorem(Y).
% 35881 [] equal(and(X,Y),not(implies(X,not(Y)))).
% 35882 [] equal(equivalent(X,Y),and(implies(X,Y),implies(Y,X))).
% 35883 [] -theorem(equivalent(p,or(p,and(p,q)))).
% 35885 [binary:35879,35873] theorem(implies(or(X,X),X)).
% 35886 [binary:35879,35874] theorem(implies(X,or(Y,X))).
% 35894 [para:35878.1.2,35875.1.1.2] axiom(implies(or(X,not(Y)),implies(Y,X))).
% 35896 [para:35878.1.2,35876.1.1.1,demod:35878] axiom(implies(implies(X,or(Y,Z)),or(Y,implies(X,Z)))).
% 35899 [binary:35879.2,35880] -axiom(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(X) | theorem(Y).
% 35901 [binary:35885,35880] -theorem(or(X,X)) | theorem(X).
% 35967 [para:35881.1.2,35878.1.2.1] equal(implies(implies(X,not(Y)),Z),or(and(X,Y),Z)).
% 36050 [binary:35886,35899.2] -axiom(implies(implies(X,or(Y,X)),Z)) | theorem(Z).
% 36073 [binary:35899,35894] -theorem(or(X,not(Y))) | theorem(implies(Y,X)).
% 40005 [binary:35880,36073.2] -theorem(or(X,not(Y))) | -theorem(Y) | theorem(X).
% 41594 [binary:35896,36050] theorem(or(X,implies(Y,Y))).
% 41732 [binary:35901,41594] theorem(implies(X,X)).
% 41761 [binary:35899.2,41732] -axiom(implies(implies(X,X),Y)) | theorem(Y).
% 44982 [binary:35896,41761] theorem(or(X,implies(or(X,Y),Y))).
% 46372 [para:35878.1.2,44982.1.1,demod:35878] theorem(implies(X,implies(implies(X,Y),Y))).
% 46601 [binary:35880,46372] theorem(implies(implies(X,Y),Y)) | -theorem(X).
% 46671 [para:35967.1.1,46601.1.1] theorem(or(and(X,Y),not(Y))) | -theorem(X).
% 68223 [binary:40005,46671] theorem(and(X,Y)) | -theorem(Y) | -theorem(X).
% 68556 [para:35882.1.2,68223.1.1] -theorem(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(implies(Y,X)) | theorem(equivalent(Y,X)).
% 134431 [binary:35883,68556.3,cut:23629,cut:27239] contradiction
% END OF PROOF
% 
% Proof found by the following strategy:
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit paramodulation strategy
% using unit strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 5
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 28
% 
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% ***GANDALF_FOUND_A_REFUTATION***
% 
% Global statistics over all passes: 
% 
%  given clauses:    14234
%  derived clauses:   2516630
%  kept clauses:      104641
%  kept size sum:     0
%  kept mid-nuclei:   12804
%  kept new demods:   18
%  forw unit-subs:    275227
%  forw double-subs: 138378
%  forw overdouble-subs: 11875
%  backward subs:     217
%  fast unit cutoff:  67
%  full unit cutoff:  39
%  dbl  unit cutoff:  0
%  real runtime  :  110.68
%  process. runtime:  110.12
% specific non-discr-tree subsumption statistics: 
%  tried:           399634
%  length fails:    9070
%  strength fails:  997
%  predlist fails:  182091
%  aux str. fails:  352
%  by-lit fails:    1136
%  full subs tried: 197426
%  full subs fail:  185551
% 
% ; program args: ("/home/graph/tptp/Systems/Gandalf---c-2.6/gandalf" "-time" "600" "/home/graph/tptp/TSTP/PreparedTPTP/otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)---add_equality:r/LCL/LCL285-3+eq_r.in")
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------