%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem  : NLP118-1 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality:r
% Format   : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command  : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s

% Computer : art01.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   : Unknown 19.9s
% Output   : None 
% 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/NLP/NLP118-1+noeq.in
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
% 
% prove-all-passes started
% 
% detected problem class: nne
% detected subclass: medium
% 
% strategies selected: 
% (hyper 27 #f 1 35)
% (binary-unit 10 #f 1 35)
% (binary-double 16 #f 1 35)
% (binary 54 #t 1 35)
% (binary-order 27 #f 1 35)
% (binary-posweight-order 125 #f)
% (binary-order-sos 54 #t)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 27 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 54 #f)
% (binary-order 54 #f)
% (hyper-order 43 #f)
% (binary 109 #t)
% 
% 
% SOS clause 
% -agent(X,Y,Z) | -old(X,Z) | -dirty(X,Z) | -white(X,Z) | -chevy(X,Z) | -barrel(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -event(X,Y) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -placename(X,U) | -in(X,Y,V) | -city(X,V) | -of(X,U,V) | -street(X,W) | -lonely(X,W) | -down(X,Y,W) | -actual_world(X) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% was split for some strategies as: 
% -agent(X,Y,Z) | -old(X,Z) | -dirty(X,Z) | -white(X,Z) | -chevy(X,Z) | -barrel(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -event(X,Y) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -placename(X,U) | -in(X,Y,V) | -city(X,V) | -of(X,U,V) | -street(X,W) | -lonely(X,W) | -down(X,Y,W) | -actual_world(X).
% -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 
% Starting a split proof attempt with 2 components.
% 
% Split component 1 started.
% 
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split: 
% -agent(X,Y,Z) | -old(X,Z) | -dirty(X,Z) | -white(X,Z) | -chevy(X,Z) | -barrel(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -event(X,Y) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -placename(X,U) | -in(X,Y,V) | -city(X,V) | -of(X,U,V) | -street(X,W) | -lonely(X,W) | -down(X,Y,W) | -actual_world(X) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% Split part used next: -agent(X,Y,Z) | -old(X,Z) | -dirty(X,Z) | -white(X,Z) | -chevy(X,Z) | -barrel(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -event(X,Y) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -placename(X,U) | -in(X,Y,V) | -city(X,V) | -of(X,U,V) | -street(X,W) | -lonely(X,W) | -down(X,Y,W) | -actual_world(X).
% END OF PROOFPART
% ********* EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED *********
% 
% 
% timer checkpoints: c(36,40,0,72,0,0,62014,50,322,62050,0,322,123992,50,662,123992,40,662,124028,0,662,124070,50,662,124106,0,662,124148,50,663,124184,0,663,124226,50,663,124262,0,663,124304,50,663,124340,0,663,124382,50,663,124418,0,663,124460,50,663,124496,0,663,124538,50,663,124574,0,663,124616,50,664,124652,0,664,124694,50,664,124730,0,664,124772,50,664,124808,0,664,124850,50,664,124886,0,664,124928,50,664,124964,0,664,125006,50,664,125042,0,664,125084,50,665,125120,0,665,125162,50,665,125198,0,665,125240,50,665,125276,0,665,125318,50,665,125354,0,665,125396,50,665,125432,0,665,125474,50,666,125510,0,666,125552,50,666,125588,0,666,125630,50,666,125630,40,666,125666,0,666,126031,50,670,126067,0,670,126432,50,673,126468,0,673,126833,50,677,126869,0,677,127234,50,680,127270,0,680,127635,50,684,127671,0,684,128036,50,688,128072,0,688,128437,50,692,128473,0,692,128838,50,696,128874,0,696,129239,50,700,129275,0,700,129640,50,705,129676,0,705,130041,50,709,130077,0,709,130442,50,714,130478,0,714,130843,50,719,130879,0,719,131244,50,723,131280,0,723,131645,50,728,131681,0,729,132046,50,734,132082,0,734,132447,50,739,132483,0,739,132848,50,744,132884,0,744,133249,50,748,133285,0,748,133650,50,752,133686,0,752,134051,50,757,134051,40,757,134087,0,757,134241,50,764,134277,0,764,134431,50,771,134467,0,771,134621,50,779,134657,0,779,134811,50,786,134847,0,786,135001,50,794,135037,0,794,135191,50,802,135227,0,802,135381,50,810,135417,0,810,135571,50,818,135607,0,818,135761,50,826,135797,0,826,135951,50,834,135987,0,834,136141,50,843,136177,0,843,136331,50,851,136367,0,851,136521,50,860,136557,0,860,136711,50,868,136747,0,868,136901,50,877,136937,0,878,137091,50,886,137127,0,886,137281,50,895,137317,0,895,137471,50,905,137507,0,905,137661,50,914,137697,0,914,137851,50,923,137887,0,924,138041,50,933,138041,40,933,138077,0,933,138845,50,953,138881,0,953,139649,50,973,139685,0,973,140453,50,994,140489,0,994,141257,50,1015,141293,0,1015,142061,50,1035,142097,0,1035,142865,50,1056,142901,0,1056,143669,50,1077,143705,0,1077,144473,50,1099,144509,0,1099,145277,50,1121,145313,0,1121,146081,50,1142,146117,0,1143,146885,50,1164,146921,0,1164,147689,50,1187,147725,0,1187,148493,50,1209,148529,0,1209,149297,50,1232,149333,0,1232,150101,50,1255,150137,0,1255,150905,50,1278,150941,0,1278,151709,50,1301,151745,0,1302,152513,50,1325,152549,0,1325,153317,50,1349,153353,0,1349,154121,50,1373,154157,0,1373,154925,50,1398,154925,40,1398,154961,0,1398,156451,50,1446,156451,40,1446,156487,0,1446,157255,50,1471,157255,40,1471,157291,0,1471,157333,50,1471,157333,40,1471,157369,0,1471,157437,50,1479,157437,40,1479,157473,0,1479,158241,50,1504,158241,40,1504,158277,0,1505,158409,50,1507,158409,40,1507,158445,0,1507,158599,50,1520,158599,40,1520,158599,40,1520,158635,0,1520)
% 
% 
% START OF PROOF
% 158601 [] agent(skc11,skc12,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158602 [] of(skc11,skc15,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158603 [] in(skc11,skc12,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158604 [] down(skc11,skc12,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158605 [] down(skc16,skc17,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158606 [] of(skc16,skc19,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158607 [] in(skc16,skc17,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158608 [] agent(skc16,skc17,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158609 [] chevy(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158610 [] white(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158611 [] dirty(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158612 [] old(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158613 [] barrel(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158614 [] present(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158615 [] event(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158616 [] hollywood_placename(skc11,skc15) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158617 [] placename(skc11,skc15) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158618 [] lonely(skc11,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158619 [] street(skc11,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158620 [] city(skc11,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158621 [] lonely(skc16,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158622 [] street(skc16,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158623 [] city(skc16,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158624 [] placename(skc16,skc19) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158625 [] hollywood_placename(skc16,skc19) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158626 [] event(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158627 [] present(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158628 [] barrel(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158629 [] chevy(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158630 [] white(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158631 [] dirty(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158632 [] old(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 158633 [] actual_world(skc11).
% 158634 [] actual_world(skc16).
% 158635 [] -down(X,Y,Z) | -of(X,U,V) | -in(X,Y,V) | -agent(X,Y,W) | -lonely(X,Z) | -street(X,Z) | -city(X,V) | -placename(X,U) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -event(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -barrel(X,Y) | -chevy(X,W) | -white(X,W) | -dirty(X,W) | -old(X,W) | -actual_world(X).
% 159008 [hyper:158635,158608,158605,158606,cut:158634,binarycut:158626,binarycut:158627,binarycut:158628,binarycut:158629,binarycut:158630,binarycut:158631,binarycut:158632,binarycut:158621,binarycut:158622,binarycut:158607,binarycut:158623,binarycut:158624,binarycut:158625] ss^sk^c0(0).
% 159025 [hyper:158601,159008] agent(skc11,skc12,skc13).
% 159026 [hyper:158602,159008] of(skc11,skc15,skc14).
% 159027 [hyper:158603,159008] in(skc11,skc12,skc14).
% 159028 [hyper:158604,159008] down(skc11,skc12,skc14).
% 159029 [hyper:158609,159008] chevy(skc11,skc13).
% 159030 [hyper:158610,159008] white(skc11,skc13).
% 159031 [hyper:158611,159008] dirty(skc11,skc13).
% 159032 [hyper:158612,159008] old(skc11,skc13).
% 159033 [hyper:158613,159008] barrel(skc11,skc12).
% 159034 [hyper:158614,159008] present(skc11,skc12).
% 159035 [hyper:158615,159008] event(skc11,skc12).
% 159036 [hyper:158616,159008] hollywood_placename(skc11,skc15).
% 159037 [hyper:158617,159008] placename(skc11,skc15).
% 159038 [hyper:158618,159008] lonely(skc11,skc14).
% 159039 [hyper:158619,159008] street(skc11,skc14).
% 159040 [hyper:158620,159008] city(skc11,skc14).
% 159090 [hyper:158635,159028,159027,159026,159025,cut:159038,cut:159039,cut:159035,cut:159034,cut:159033,cut:158633,cut:159040,cut:159037,cut:159036,cut:159029,cut:159030,cut:159031,cut:159032] 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% Split component 2 started.
% 
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split: 
% -agent(X,Y,Z) | -old(X,Z) | -dirty(X,Z) | -white(X,Z) | -chevy(X,Z) | -barrel(X,Y) | -present(X,Y) | -event(X,Y) | -hollywood_placename(X,U) | -placename(X,U) | -in(X,Y,V) | -city(X,V) | -of(X,U,V) | -street(X,W) | -lonely(X,W) | -down(X,Y,W) | -actual_world(X) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% Split part used next: -ss^sk^c0(0).
% END OF PROOFPART
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 2
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 6
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 7
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 8
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 9
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 10
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 12
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 13
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 14
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 15
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 16
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 17
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 18
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 19
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 20
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% 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 35
% clause depth limited to 21
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 2
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 6
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 7
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 8
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 9
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 10
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 12
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 13
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 14
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 15
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 16
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 17
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 18
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 19
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 20
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit 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 35
% clause depth limited to 21
% seconds given: 6
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 2
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 6
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 7
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 8
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 9
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 10
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 12
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 13
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 14
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 15
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 16
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 17
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 18
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 19
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 20
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 21
% seconds given: 10
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 2
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 6
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 7
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 8
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 9
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 10
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 12
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 13
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 14
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 15
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 16
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 17
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 18
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 19
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 20
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 21
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 1
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 2
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 3
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 4
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 6
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 7
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 8
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 9
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 10
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 12
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 13
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 14
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 15
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 16
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 17
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 18
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 19
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 20
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos 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 35
% clause depth limited to 21
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 82
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit paramodulation strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 36
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using hyperresolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% 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
% seconds given: 28
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 380
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: sos exhausted
% 
% Split attempt finished with FAILURE.
% 
% search space exhausted.
% 
% Global statistics over all passes: 
% 
%  given clauses:    23956
%  derived clauses:   228028
%  kept clauses:      47834
%  kept size sum:     541443
%  kept mid-nuclei:   112395
%  kept new demods:   0
%  forw unit-subs:    1108
%  forw double-subs: 4333
%  forw overdouble-subs: 55382
%  backward subs:     47837
%  fast unit cutoff:  35917
%  full unit cutoff:  0
%  dbl  unit cutoff:  13843
%  real runtime  :  22.51
%  process. runtime:  22.36
% specific non-discr-tree subsumption statistics: 
%  tried:           3822106
%  length fails:    51657
%  strength fails:  1252005
%  predlist fails:  2346193
%  aux str. fails:  1579
%  by-lit fails:    36132
%  full subs tried: 96239
%  full subs fail:  57362
% 
% ; 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/NLP/NLP118-1+noeq.in")
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------