TSTP Solution File: NUM852+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : NUM852+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art09.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 2018MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Dec 29 20:48:33 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 32.37s
% Output : Solution 32.37s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% Reading problem from /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29260/NUM852+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29260/NUM852+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29260/NUM852+1.tptp
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% TreeLimitedRun: /home/graph/tptp/Systems/EP---1.2/eproof --print-statistics -xAuto -tAuto --cpu-limit=60 --proof-time-unlimited --memory-limit=Auto --tstp-in --tstp-out /tmp/SRASS.s.p
% TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 60s
% TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 120s
% TreeLimitedRun: PID is 29356
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% PrfWatch: 1.94 CPU 2.03 WC
% PrfWatch: 3.93 CPU 4.03 WC
% PrfWatch: 5.93 CPU 6.04 WC
% PrfWatch: 7.91 CPU 8.04 WC
% PrfWatch: 9.53 CPU 10.05 WC
% PrfWatch: 11.18 CPU 12.05 WC
% PrfWatch: 13.17 CPU 14.06 WC
% PrfWatch: 15.16 CPU 16.06 WC
% PrfWatch: 17.15 CPU 18.07 WC
% PrfWatch: 19.14 CPU 20.07 WC
% PrfWatch: 21.13 CPU 22.08 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.016 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% PrfWatch: 23.08 CPU 24.08 WC
% PrfWatch: 25.07 CPU 26.09 WC
% PrfWatch: 27.07 CPU 28.09 WC
% PrfWatch: 29.06 CPU 30.10 WC
% PrfWatch: 31.04 CPU 32.10 WC
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(1, axiom,greater(vd481,vd480),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'holds(conseq_conjunct1(conseq(304)), 483, 0)')).
% fof(5, axiom,![X6]:![X7]:vmul(X6,X7)=vmul(X7,X6),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'ass(cond(270, 0), 0)')).
% fof(11, axiom,![X22]:![X23]:greater(vplus(X22,X23),X22),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'ass(cond(189, 0), 0)')).
% fof(14, axiom,![X24]:![X25]:![X26]:vmul(X24,vplus(X25,X26))=vplus(vmul(X24,X25),vmul(X24,X26)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'ass(cond(281, 0), 0)')).
% fof(30, axiom,![X8]:![X9]:(greater(X8,X9)=>X8=vplus(X9,vskolem9(X8,X9))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'ass(cond(302, 0), 3)')).
% fof(58, conjecture,greater(vmul(vd481,vd469),vmul(vd480,vd469)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', 'holds(conseq_conjunct1(conseq_conjunct2(conseq(304))), 484, 0)')).
% fof(59, negated_conjecture,~(greater(vmul(vd481,vd469),vmul(vd480,vd469))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[58])).
% fof(63, negated_conjecture,~(greater(vmul(vd481,vd469),vmul(vd480,vd469))),inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[59,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(64,plain,(greater(vd481,vd480)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[1])).
% fof(71, plain,![X8]:![X9]:vmul(X8,X9)=vmul(X9,X8),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[5])).
% cnf(72,plain,(vmul(X1,X2)=vmul(X2,X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[71])).
% fof(87, plain,![X24]:![X25]:greater(vplus(X24,X25),X24),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[11])).
% cnf(88,plain,(greater(vplus(X1,X2),X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[87])).
% fof(95, plain,![X27]:![X28]:![X29]:vmul(X27,vplus(X28,X29))=vplus(vmul(X27,X28),vmul(X27,X29)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[14])).
% cnf(96,plain,(vmul(X1,vplus(X2,X3))=vplus(vmul(X1,X2),vmul(X1,X3))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[95])).
% fof(145, plain,![X8]:![X9]:(~(greater(X8,X9))|X8=vplus(X9,vskolem9(X8,X9))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[30])).
% fof(146, plain,![X10]:![X11]:(~(greater(X10,X11))|X10=vplus(X11,vskolem9(X10,X11))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[145])).
% cnf(147,plain,(X1=vplus(X2,vskolem9(X1,X2))|~greater(X1,X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[146])).
% cnf(233,negated_conjecture,(~greater(vmul(vd481,vd469),vmul(vd480,vd469))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[63])).
% cnf(291,negated_conjecture,(~greater(vmul(vd469,vd481),vmul(vd469,vd480))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[233,72,theory(equality)]),72,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(402,plain,(greater(vmul(X1,vplus(X2,X3)),vmul(X1,X2))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[88,96,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(428,plain,(vplus(vd480,vskolem9(vd481,vd480))=vd481),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[147,64,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(6275,plain,(greater(vmul(X1,vd481),vmul(X1,vd480))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[402,428,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(712057,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[291,6275,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(712058,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[712057,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(712059,negated_conjecture,($false),712058,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 59592
% # ...of these trivial : 756
% # ...subsumed : 51312
% # ...remaining for further processing: 7524
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2692
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 363
% # Backward-rewritten : 576
% # Generated clauses : 536194
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 504977
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 531
% # Paramodulations : 532580
% # Factorizations : 2
% # Equation resolutions : 3306
% # Current number of processed clauses: 6366
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 514
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 38
% # Negative unit clauses : 2370
% # Non-unit-clauses : 3444
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 365501
% # ...number of literals in the above : 890865
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1179247
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1168847
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 162871
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 2132
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 806
% # Backwards rewriting index: 1963 leaves, 1.93+/-3.009 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 553 leaves, 1.33+/-0.910 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 1787 leaves, 1.92+/-3.003 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 22.173 s
% # System time : 0.635 s
% # Total time : 22.808 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 31.39 CPU 32.45 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 31.39 CPU 32.46 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29260/NUM852+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------