TSTP Solution File: SET058-7 by SPASS---3.9
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SPASS---3.9
% Problem : SET058-7 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : run_spass %d %s
% Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 600s
% DateTime : Tue Jul 19 05:23:16 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.42s
% Output : Refutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SET058-7 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Jul 10 04:16:23 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS V 3.9
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.19/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.42 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS derived 16 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 0 splits and kept 113 clauses.
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS allocated 75751 KBytes.
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS spent 0:00:00.07 on the problem.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for inferences.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.01 for the reduction.
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42 Here is a proof with depth 1, length 10 :
% 0.19/0.42 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.19/0.42 7[0:Inp] || -> member(not_subclass_element(y__dfg,x__dfg),x__dfg)*.
% 0.19/0.42 8[0:Inp] || equal(x__dfg,y__dfg)** -> .
% 0.19/0.42 9[0:Inp] || member(not_subclass_element(x__dfg,y__dfg),x__dfg)* -> .
% 0.19/0.42 11[0:Inp] || -> subclass(u,v) member(not_subclass_element(u,v),u)*.
% 0.19/0.42 12[0:Inp] || member(not_subclass_element(u,v),v)* -> subclass(u,v).
% 0.19/0.42 16[0:Inp] || subclass(u,v)* subclass(v,u)* -> equal(v,u).
% 0.19/0.42 103[0:Res:16.2,8.0] || subclass(x__dfg,y__dfg)*l subclass(y__dfg,x__dfg) -> .
% 0.19/0.42 109[0:Res:7.0,12.0] || -> subclass(y__dfg,x__dfg)*r.
% 0.19/0.43 117[0:Res:11.0,9.0] || -> subclass(x__dfg,y__dfg)*l.
% 0.19/0.43 125[0:MRR:103.0,103.1,117.0,109.0] || -> .
% 0.19/0.43 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.19/0.43 Formulae used in the proof : prove_equality3_1 prove_equality3_2 prove_equality3_3 not_subclass_members1 not_subclass_members2 subclass_implies_equal
% 0.19/0.43
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------