TSTP Solution File: LCL645-10.001 by Moca---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Moca---0.1
% Problem : LCL645-10.001 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : moca.sh %s
% Computer : n028.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 13:03:00 EDT 2022
% Result : Unknown 0.97s 1.11s
% Output : None
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : LCL645-10.001 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : moca.sh %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Jul 4 14:52:34 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.97/1.11 % SZS status Satisfiable
% 0.97/1.11 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.97/1.11 The input problem is satisfiable because
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 [1] the following set of Horn clauses is satisfiable:
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(A, A, B, C) = B
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(A, A, B, C) = B
% 0.97/1.11 r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y) = true
% 0.97/1.11 r1(sK3_main_X, sK1_main_Y) = true
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK2_main_Y, X), true, p1(X), true) = true
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK1_main_Y, X), true, p1(X), true) = true
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK2_main_Y), true, a, b) = b
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK1_main_Y), true, a, b) = b
% 0.97/1.11 a = b ==> \bottom
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 This holds because
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 [2] the following E does not entail the following G (Claessen-Smallbone's transformation (2018)):
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 E:
% 0.97/1.11 f1(a) = false__
% 0.97/1.11 f1(b) = true__
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(A, A, B, C) = B
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK1_main_Y), true, a, b) = b
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK2_main_Y), true, a, b) = b
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(A, A, B, C) = B
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK1_main_Y, X), true, p1(X), true) = true
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK2_main_Y, X), true, p1(X), true) = true
% 0.97/1.11 r1(sK3_main_X, sK1_main_Y) = true
% 0.97/1.11 r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y) = true
% 0.97/1.11 G:
% 0.97/1.11 true__ = false__
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 This holds because
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 [3] the following ground-complete ordered TRS entails E but does not entail G:
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 f1(a) -> false__
% 0.97/1.11 f1(b) -> true__
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(A, A, B, C) -> B
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK1_main_Y), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y), a, b) -> b
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq(p1(sK2_main_Y), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y), a, b) -> b
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(A, A, B, C) -> B
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK1_main_Y, Y0), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y), p1(Y0), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)) -> r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)
% 0.97/1.11 ifeq2(r1(sK2_main_Y, Y0), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y), p1(Y0), r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)) -> r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)
% 0.97/1.11 r1(sK3_main_X, sK1_main_Y) -> r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)
% 0.97/1.11 true -> r1(sK3_main_X, sK2_main_Y)
% 0.97/1.11 with the LPO induced by
% 0.97/1.11 p1 > a > ifeq > ifeq2 > sK1_main_Y > true > sK2_main_Y > sK3_main_X > f1 > r1 > b > true__ > false__
% 0.97/1.11
% 0.97/1.11 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.97/1.11
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------