TSTP Solution File: REL008+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : REL008+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art02.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 21:35:51 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 1.59s
% Output : Solution 1.59s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP29851/REL008+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29851/REL008+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29851/REL008+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 29947
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.00 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(4, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:composition(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', composition_distributivity)).
% fof(5, axiom,![X1]:converse(converse(X1))=X1,file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_idempotence)).
% fof(6, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_multiplicativity)).
% fof(10, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_additivity)).
% fof(14, conjecture,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:composition(X1,join(X2,X3))=join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X1,X3)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', goals)).
% fof(15, negated_conjecture,~(![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:composition(X1,join(X2,X3))=join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X1,X3))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[14])).
% fof(22, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:composition(join(X4,X5),X6)=join(composition(X4,X6),composition(X5,X6)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[4])).
% cnf(23,plain,(composition(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[22])).
% fof(24, plain,![X2]:converse(converse(X2))=X2,inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[5])).
% cnf(25,plain,(converse(converse(X1))=X1),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[24])).
% fof(26, plain,![X3]:![X4]:converse(composition(X3,X4))=composition(converse(X4),converse(X3)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[6])).
% cnf(27,plain,(converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[26])).
% fof(34, plain,![X3]:![X4]:converse(join(X3,X4))=join(converse(X3),converse(X4)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[10])).
% cnf(35,plain,(converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[34])).
% fof(42, negated_conjecture,?[X1]:?[X2]:?[X3]:~(composition(X1,join(X2,X3))=join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X1,X3))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[15])).
% fof(43, negated_conjecture,?[X4]:?[X5]:?[X6]:~(composition(X4,join(X5,X6))=join(composition(X4,X5),composition(X4,X6))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[42])).
% fof(44, negated_conjecture,~(composition(esk1_0,join(esk2_0,esk3_0))=join(composition(esk1_0,esk2_0),composition(esk1_0,esk3_0))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[43])).
% cnf(45,negated_conjecture,(composition(esk1_0,join(esk2_0,esk3_0))!=join(composition(esk1_0,esk2_0),composition(esk1_0,esk3_0))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[44])).
% cnf(53,plain,(composition(converse(X1),X2)=converse(composition(converse(X2),X1))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[27,25,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(91,plain,(join(composition(converse(X2),X1),converse(X3))=converse(join(composition(converse(X1),X2),X3))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[35,53,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(373,plain,(join(composition(X1,converse(X2)),converse(composition(X2,X3)))=composition(join(X1,converse(X3)),converse(X2))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[23,27,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(32975,plain,(converse(composition(join(converse(X1),converse(X3)),converse(X2)))=join(composition(converse(converse(X2)),X1),converse(converse(composition(X2,X3))))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[91,373,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(33104,plain,(composition(X2,join(X1,X3))=join(composition(converse(converse(X2)),X1),converse(converse(composition(X2,X3))))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[32975,35,theory(equality)]),27,theory(equality)]),25,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(33105,plain,(composition(X2,join(X1,X3))=join(composition(X2,X1),composition(X2,X3))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[33104,25,theory(equality)]),25,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(33450,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[45,33105,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(33451,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[33450,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(33452,negated_conjecture,($false),33451,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 1129
% # ...of these trivial : 707
% # ...subsumed : 134
% # ...remaining for further processing: 288
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 79
% # Generated clauses : 17029
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 8241
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 17029
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 209
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 203
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% # Negative unit clauses : 0
% # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5106
% # ...number of literals in the above : 5106
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 682
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 215
% # Backwards rewriting index: 256 leaves, 1.67+/-1.160 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 144 leaves, 1.47+/-0.964 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 231 leaves, 1.65+/-1.121 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.341 s
% # System time : 0.013 s
% # Total time : 0.354 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.81 CPU 0.90 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.81 CPU 0.90 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP29851/REL008+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------