TSTP Solution File: LCL286-3 by Gandalf---c-2.6

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem  : LCL286-3 : 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 : art07.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 109.1s
% Output   : Assurance 109.1s
% 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/LCL286-3+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(12,40,1,24,0,1,15947,3,2852,19034,4,4277,21991,5,5702,21992,5,5703,21992,1,5703,21992,50,5705,21992,40,5705,22004,0,5705,30831,3,7113,32479,4,7816,34047,5,8506,34047,5,8506,34048,1,8506,34048,50,8507,34048,40,8507,34060,0,8507,102902,3,9908,125449,4,10609)
% 
% 
% START OF PROOF
% 13859 [?] ?
% 26690 [?] ?
% 34050 [] axiom(implies(or(X,X),X)).
% 34051 [] axiom(implies(X,or(Y,X))).
% 34052 [] axiom(implies(or(X,Y),or(Y,X))).
% 34053 [] axiom(implies(or(X,or(Y,Z)),or(Y,or(X,Z)))).
% 34055 [] equal(implies(X,Y),or(not(X),Y)).
% 34056 [] -axiom(X) | theorem(X).
% 34057 [] -theorem(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(X) | theorem(Y).
% 34058 [] equal(and(X,Y),not(implies(X,not(Y)))).
% 34059 [] equal(equivalent(X,Y),and(implies(X,Y),implies(Y,X))).
% 34060 [] -theorem(equivalent(p,and(p,or(p,q)))).
% 34062 [binary:34056,34050] theorem(implies(or(X,X),X)).
% 34063 [binary:34056,34051] theorem(implies(X,or(Y,X))).
% 34071 [para:34055.1.2,34052.1.1.2] axiom(implies(or(X,not(Y)),implies(Y,X))).
% 34073 [para:34055.1.2,34053.1.1.1,demod:34055] axiom(implies(implies(X,or(Y,Z)),or(Y,implies(X,Z)))).
% 34076 [binary:34056.2,34057] -axiom(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(X) | theorem(Y).
% 34078 [binary:34062,34057] -theorem(or(X,X)) | theorem(X).
% 34144 [para:34058.1.2,34055.1.2.1] equal(implies(implies(X,not(Y)),Z),or(and(X,Y),Z)).
% 34227 [binary:34063,34076.2] -axiom(implies(implies(X,or(Y,X)),Z)) | theorem(Z).
% 34250 [binary:34076,34071] -theorem(or(X,not(Y))) | theorem(implies(Y,X)).
% 38182 [binary:34057,34250.2] -theorem(or(X,not(Y))) | -theorem(Y) | theorem(X).
% 39771 [binary:34073,34227] theorem(or(X,implies(Y,Y))).
% 39909 [binary:34078,39771] theorem(implies(X,X)).
% 39938 [binary:34076.2,39909] -axiom(implies(implies(X,X),Y)) | theorem(Y).
% 43159 [binary:34073,39938] theorem(or(X,implies(or(X,Y),Y))).
% 44549 [para:34055.1.2,43159.1.1,demod:34055] theorem(implies(X,implies(implies(X,Y),Y))).
% 44778 [binary:34057,44549] theorem(implies(implies(X,Y),Y)) | -theorem(X).
% 44848 [para:34144.1.1,44778.1.1] theorem(or(and(X,Y),not(Y))) | -theorem(X).
% 66400 [binary:38182,44848] theorem(and(X,Y)) | -theorem(Y) | -theorem(X).
% 66733 [para:34059.1.2,66400.1.1] -theorem(implies(X,Y)) | -theorem(implies(Y,X)) | theorem(equivalent(Y,X)).
% 133086 [binary:34060,66733.3,cut:13859,cut:26690] 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:    14269
%  derived clauses:   2457151
%  kept clauses:      103702
%  kept size sum:     0
%  kept mid-nuclei:   12162
%  kept new demods:   18
%  forw unit-subs:    304203
%  forw double-subs: 137707
%  forw overdouble-subs: 11908
%  backward subs:     229
%  fast unit cutoff:  67
%  full unit cutoff:  32
%  dbl  unit cutoff:  0
%  real runtime  :  111.17
%  process. runtime:  110.10
% specific non-discr-tree subsumption statistics: 
%  tried:           401042
%  length fails:    9118
%  strength fails:  996
%  predlist fails:  182567
%  aux str. fails:  352
%  by-lit fails:    1136
%  full subs tried: 198311
%  full subs fail:  186403
% 
% ; 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/LCL286-3+eq_r.in")
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------