%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem  : NLP119-1 : 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 : 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   : Unknown 19.8s
% 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/NLP119-1+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(36,40,1,72,0,1,41636,50,215,41672,0,215,83236,50,439,83272,0,439,124836,50,673,124836,40,673,124872,0,673,124914,50,673,124950,0,673,124992,50,674,125028,0,674,125070,50,674,125106,0,674,125148,50,674,125184,0,674,125226,50,674,125262,0,674,125304,50,674,125340,0,674,125382,50,674,125418,0,674,125460,50,675,125496,0,675,125538,50,675,125574,0,675,125616,50,675,125652,0,675,125694,50,675,125730,0,675,125772,50,675,125808,0,675,125850,50,675,125886,0,676,125928,50,676,125964,0,676,126006,50,676,126042,0,676,126084,50,676,126120,0,676,126162,50,676,126198,0,676,126240,50,677,126276,0,677,126318,50,677,126354,0,677,126396,50,677,126432,0,677,126474,50,677,126474,40,677,126510,0,677,126867,50,681,126903,0,681,127260,50,684,127296,0,684,127653,50,688,127689,0,688,128046,50,692,128082,0,692,128439,50,695,128475,0,695,128832,50,699,128868,0,699,129225,50,703,129261,0,704,129618,50,708,129654,0,708,130011,50,712,130047,0,712,130404,50,716,130440,0,716,130797,50,721,130833,0,721,131190,50,725,131226,0,726,131583,50,730,131619,0,730,131976,50,735,132012,0,735,132369,50,740,132405,0,740,132762,50,745,132798,0,745,133155,50,749,133191,0,749,133548,50,754,133584,0,754,133941,50,758,133977,0,758,134334,50,763,134370,0,763,134727,50,767,134727,40,767,134763,0,767,134919,50,775,134955,0,775,135111,50,783,135147,0,783,135303,50,791,135339,0,791,135495,50,798,135531,0,798,135687,50,806,135723,0,806,135879,50,815,135915,0,815,136071,50,823,136107,0,823,136263,50,832,136299,0,832,136455,50,840,136491,0,840,136647,50,849,136683,0,849,136839,50,857,136875,0,857,137031,50,867,137067,0,867,137223,50,875,137259,0,875,137415,50,885,137451,0,885,137607,50,894,137643,0,894,137799,50,903,137835,0,903,137991,50,913,138027,0,913,138183,50,922,138219,0,922,138375,50,932,138411,0,932,138567,50,942,138603,0,942,138759,50,952,138759,40,952,138795,0,952,139351,50,969,139387,0,969,139943,50,987,139979,0,987,140535,50,1005,140571,0,1005,141127,50,1023,141163,0,1023,141719,50,1041,141755,0,1041,142311,50,1059,142347,0,1059,142903,50,1077,142939,0,1077,143495,50,1096,143531,0,1096,144087,50,1115,144123,0,1115,144679,50,1134,144715,0,1134,145271,50,1153,145307,0,1153,145863,50,1172,145899,0,1172,146455,50,1192,146491,0,1192,147047,50,1212,147083,0,1212,147639,50,1232,147675,0,1232,148231,50,1252,148267,0,1252,148823,50,1273,148859,0,1273,149415,50,1293,149451,0,1293,150007,50,1314,150043,0,1314,150599,50,1335,150635,0,1335,151191,50,1356,151191,40,1356,151227,0,1356,152719,50,1405,152719,40,1405,152755,0,1405,153311,50,1426,153311,40,1426,153347,0,1426,153389,50,1427,153389,40,1427,153425,0,1427,153546,50,1439,153546,40,1439,153582,0,1439,154138,50,1461,154138,40,1461,154174,0,1461,154274,50,1463,154274,40,1463,154310,0,1463,154466,50,1476,154466,40,1476,154466,40,1476,154502,0,1476)
% 
% 
% START OF PROOF
% 154468 [] of(skc11,skc14,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154469 [] agent(skc11,skc12,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154470 [] in(skc11,skc12,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154471 [] down(skc11,skc12,skc15) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154472 [] down(skc16,skc17,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154473 [] of(skc16,skc19,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154474 [] in(skc16,skc17,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154475 [] agent(skc16,skc17,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154476 [] placename(skc11,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154477 [] hollywood_placename(skc11,skc14) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154478 [] city(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154479 [] chevy(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154480 [] white(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154481 [] dirty(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154482 [] old(skc11,skc13) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154483 [] street(skc11,skc15) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154484 [] lonely(skc11,skc15) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154485 [] barrel(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154486 [] present(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154487 [] event(skc11,skc12) | -ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154488 [] lonely(skc16,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154489 [] street(skc16,skc18) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154490 [] city(skc16,skc20) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154491 [] placename(skc16,skc19) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154492 [] hollywood_placename(skc16,skc19) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154493 [] event(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154494 [] present(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154495 [] barrel(skc16,skc17) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154496 [] chevy(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154497 [] white(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154498 [] dirty(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154499 [] old(skc16,skc21) | ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154500 [] actual_world(skc11).
% 154501 [] actual_world(skc16).
% 154502 [] -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).
% 154875 [hyper:154502,154475,154472,154473,cut:154501,binarycut:154493,binarycut:154494,binarycut:154495,binarycut:154496,binarycut:154497,binarycut:154498,binarycut:154499,binarycut:154488,binarycut:154489,binarycut:154474,binarycut:154490,binarycut:154491,binarycut:154492] ss^sk^c0(0).
% 154892 [hyper:154468,154875] of(skc11,skc14,skc13).
% 154893 [hyper:154469,154875] agent(skc11,skc12,skc13).
% 154894 [hyper:154470,154875] in(skc11,skc12,skc13).
% 154895 [hyper:154471,154875] down(skc11,skc12,skc15).
% 154896 [hyper:154476,154875] placename(skc11,skc14).
% 154897 [hyper:154477,154875] hollywood_placename(skc11,skc14).
% 154898 [hyper:154478,154875] city(skc11,skc13).
% 154899 [hyper:154479,154875] chevy(skc11,skc13).
% 154900 [hyper:154480,154875] white(skc11,skc13).
% 154901 [hyper:154481,154875] dirty(skc11,skc13).
% 154902 [hyper:154482,154875] old(skc11,skc13).
% 154903 [hyper:154483,154875] street(skc11,skc15).
% 154904 [hyper:154484,154875] lonely(skc11,skc15).
% 154905 [hyper:154485,154875] barrel(skc11,skc12).
% 154906 [hyper:154486,154875] present(skc11,skc12).
% 154907 [hyper:154487,154875] event(skc11,skc12).
% 154957 [hyper:154502,154895,154894,154892,154893,cut:154904,cut:154903,cut:154907,cut:154906,cut:154905,cut:154500,cut:154898,cut:154896,cut:154897,cut:154899,cut:154900,cut:154901,cut:154902] 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
% 
% 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
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% 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:    18323
%  derived clauses:   203363
%  kept clauses:      37337
%  kept size sum:     204903
%  kept mid-nuclei:   102870
%  kept new demods:   0
%  forw unit-subs:    1276
%  forw double-subs: 6177
%  forw overdouble-subs: 49479
%  backward subs:     36984
%  fast unit cutoff:  35135
%  full unit cutoff:  0
%  dbl  unit cutoff:  22844
%  real runtime  :  20.75
%  process. runtime:  20.56
% specific non-discr-tree subsumption statistics: 
%  tried:           1875027
%  length fails:    24733
%  strength fails:  670754
%  predlist fails:  1032178
%  aux str. fails:  85
%  by-lit fails:    28843
%  full subs tried: 92710
%  full subs fail:  57000
% 
% ; 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/NLP119-1+noeq.in")
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------