TSTP Solution File: SET767+4 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : SET767+4 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art01.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 : Thu Dec 30 00:03:00 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 1.13s
% Output : Solution 1.13s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP21915/SET767+4.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21915/SET767+4.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21915/SET767+4.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 22014
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.020 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(1, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(subset(X1,X2)<=>![X3]:(member(X3,X1)=>member(X3,X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', subset)).
% fof(3, axiom,![X4]:![X7]:![X1]:![X3]:(member(X3,equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4))<=>(member(X3,X7)&apply(X4,X1,X3))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', equivalence_class)).
% fof(17, conjecture,![X7]:![X4]:![X1]:(equivalence(X4,X7)=>subset(equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4),X7)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', thIII03)).
% fof(18, negated_conjecture,~(![X7]:![X4]:![X1]:(equivalence(X4,X7)=>subset(equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4),X7))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[17])).
% fof(23, plain,![X1]:![X2]:((~(subset(X1,X2))|![X3]:(~(member(X3,X1))|member(X3,X2)))&(?[X3]:(member(X3,X1)&~(member(X3,X2)))|subset(X1,X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[1])).
% fof(24, plain,![X4]:![X5]:((~(subset(X4,X5))|![X6]:(~(member(X6,X4))|member(X6,X5)))&(?[X7]:(member(X7,X4)&~(member(X7,X5)))|subset(X4,X5))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[23])).
% fof(25, plain,![X4]:![X5]:((~(subset(X4,X5))|![X6]:(~(member(X6,X4))|member(X6,X5)))&((member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X4)&~(member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)))|subset(X4,X5))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[24])).
% fof(26, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:(((~(member(X6,X4))|member(X6,X5))|~(subset(X4,X5)))&((member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X4)&~(member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)))|subset(X4,X5))),inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[25])).
% fof(27, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:(((~(member(X6,X4))|member(X6,X5))|~(subset(X4,X5)))&((member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X4)|subset(X4,X5))&(~(member(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5))|subset(X4,X5)))),inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[26])).
% cnf(28,plain,(subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[27])).
% cnf(29,plain,(subset(X1,X2)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[27])).
% fof(35, plain,![X4]:![X7]:![X1]:![X3]:((~(member(X3,equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4)))|(member(X3,X7)&apply(X4,X1,X3)))&((~(member(X3,X7))|~(apply(X4,X1,X3)))|member(X3,equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[3])).
% fof(36, plain,![X8]:![X9]:![X10]:![X11]:((~(member(X11,equivalence_class(X10,X9,X8)))|(member(X11,X9)&apply(X8,X10,X11)))&((~(member(X11,X9))|~(apply(X8,X10,X11)))|member(X11,equivalence_class(X10,X9,X8)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[35])).
% fof(37, plain,![X8]:![X9]:![X10]:![X11]:(((member(X11,X9)|~(member(X11,equivalence_class(X10,X9,X8))))&(apply(X8,X10,X11)|~(member(X11,equivalence_class(X10,X9,X8)))))&((~(member(X11,X9))|~(apply(X8,X10,X11)))|member(X11,equivalence_class(X10,X9,X8)))),inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[36])).
% cnf(40,plain,(member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,equivalence_class(X2,X3,X4))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[37])).
% fof(153, negated_conjecture,?[X7]:?[X4]:?[X1]:(equivalence(X4,X7)&~(subset(equivalence_class(X1,X7,X4),X7))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(154, negated_conjecture,?[X8]:?[X9]:?[X10]:(equivalence(X9,X8)&~(subset(equivalence_class(X10,X8,X9),X8))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[153])).
% fof(155, negated_conjecture,(equivalence(esk16_0,esk15_0)&~(subset(equivalence_class(esk17_0,esk15_0,esk16_0),esk15_0))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[154])).
% cnf(156,negated_conjecture,(~subset(equivalence_class(esk17_0,esk15_0,esk16_0),esk15_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[155])).
% cnf(227,plain,(member(esk1_2(equivalence_class(X1,X2,X3),X4),X2)|subset(equivalence_class(X1,X2,X3),X4)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[40,29,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(868,plain,(subset(equivalence_class(X1,X2,X3),X2)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[28,227,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(880,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[156,868,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(881,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[880,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(882,negated_conjecture,($false),881,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 302
% # ...of these trivial : 14
% # ...subsumed : 0
% # ...remaining for further processing: 288
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 1
% # Generated clauses : 591
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 567
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 588
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 3
% # Current number of processed clauses: 156
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 26
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% # Negative unit clauses : 3
% # Non-unit-clauses : 127
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 521
% # ...number of literals in the above : 2287
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2956
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 664
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 341
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 15
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 1
% # Backwards rewriting index: 127 leaves, 1.38+/-1.086 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 59 leaves, 1.03+/-0.181 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 117 leaves, 1.21+/-0.515 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.056 s
% # System time : 0.007 s
% # Total time : 0.063 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.19 CPU 0.28 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.19 CPU 0.28 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21915/SET767+4.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------