TSTP Solution File: SEU097+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : SEU097+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz
% Memory : 2006MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Dec 30 01:06:29 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 51.50s
% Output : Solution 51.50s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP9937/SEU097+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP9937/SEU097+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP9937/SEU097+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 10069
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.01 WC
% PrfWatch: 1.94 CPU 2.01 WC
% PrfWatch: 3.93 CPU 4.02 WC
% PrfWatch: 5.92 CPU 6.03 WC
% PrfWatch: 7.92 CPU 8.03 WC
% PrfWatch: 9.90 CPU 10.04 WC
% PrfWatch: 11.72 CPU 12.05 WC
% PrfWatch: 13.59 CPU 14.05 WC
% PrfWatch: 15.58 CPU 16.06 WC
% PrfWatch: 17.57 CPU 18.07 WC
% PrfWatch: 19.57 CPU 20.07 WC
% PrfWatch: 21.53 CPU 22.08 WC
% PrfWatch: 23.51 CPU 24.09 WC
% PrfWatch: 25.48 CPU 26.09 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.016 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% PrfWatch: 27.25 CPU 28.10 WC
% PrfWatch: 29.17 CPU 30.11 WC
% PrfWatch: 31.14 CPU 32.12 WC
% PrfWatch: 33.14 CPU 34.12 WC
% PrfWatch: 35.13 CPU 36.13 WC
% PrfWatch: 37.12 CPU 38.14 WC
% PrfWatch: 39.11 CPU 40.14 WC
% PrfWatch: 41.10 CPU 42.15 WC
% PrfWatch: 43.10 CPU 44.16 WC
% PrfWatch: 45.09 CPU 46.16 WC
% PrfWatch: 47.09 CPU 48.17 WC
% PrfWatch: 49.07 CPU 50.17 WC
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(5, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:((finite(X1)&finite(X2))=>finite(set_union2(X1,X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', fc9_finset_1)).
% fof(9, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(finite(X1)=>finite(set_difference(X1,X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', fc12_finset_1)).
% fof(35, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:symmetric_difference(X1,X2)=set_union2(set_difference(X1,X2),set_difference(X2,X1)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', d6_xboole_0)).
% fof(70, conjecture,![X1]:![X2]:((finite(X1)&finite(X2))=>finite(symmetric_difference(X1,X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', t28_finset_1)).
% fof(71, negated_conjecture,~(![X1]:![X2]:((finite(X1)&finite(X2))=>finite(symmetric_difference(X1,X2)))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[70])).
% fof(97, plain,![X1]:![X2]:((~(finite(X1))|~(finite(X2)))|finite(set_union2(X1,X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[5])).
% fof(98, plain,![X3]:![X4]:((~(finite(X3))|~(finite(X4)))|finite(set_union2(X3,X4))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[97])).
% cnf(99,plain,(finite(set_union2(X1,X2))|~finite(X2)|~finite(X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[98])).
% fof(109, plain,![X1]:![X2]:(~(finite(X1))|finite(set_difference(X1,X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[9])).
% fof(110, plain,![X3]:![X4]:(~(finite(X3))|finite(set_difference(X3,X4))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[109])).
% cnf(111,plain,(finite(set_difference(X1,X2))|~finite(X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[110])).
% fof(217, plain,![X3]:![X4]:symmetric_difference(X3,X4)=set_union2(set_difference(X3,X4),set_difference(X4,X3)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[35])).
% cnf(218,plain,(symmetric_difference(X1,X2)=set_union2(set_difference(X1,X2),set_difference(X2,X1))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[217])).
% fof(368, negated_conjecture,?[X1]:?[X2]:((finite(X1)&finite(X2))&~(finite(symmetric_difference(X1,X2)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[71])).
% fof(369, negated_conjecture,?[X3]:?[X4]:((finite(X3)&finite(X4))&~(finite(symmetric_difference(X3,X4)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[368])).
% fof(370, negated_conjecture,((finite(esk27_0)&finite(esk28_0))&~(finite(symmetric_difference(esk27_0,esk28_0)))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[369])).
% cnf(371,negated_conjecture,(~finite(symmetric_difference(esk27_0,esk28_0))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[370])).
% cnf(372,negated_conjecture,(finite(esk28_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[370])).
% cnf(373,negated_conjecture,(finite(esk27_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[370])).
% cnf(376,negated_conjecture,(~finite(set_union2(set_difference(esk27_0,esk28_0),set_difference(esk28_0,esk27_0)))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[371,218,theory(equality)]),['unfolding']).
% cnf(638,negated_conjecture,(finite(set_difference(esk28_0,X1))),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[111,372,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(639,negated_conjecture,(finite(set_difference(esk27_0,X1))),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[111,373,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(1030,negated_conjecture,(finite(set_union2(X1,set_difference(esk28_0,X2)))|~finite(X1)),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[99,638,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(3169,negated_conjecture,(finite(set_union2(set_difference(esk27_0,X1),set_difference(esk28_0,X2)))),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[1030,639,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(1369914,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[376,3169,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(1369915,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[1369914,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(1369916,negated_conjecture,($false),1369915,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 5550
% # ...of these trivial : 423
% # ...subsumed : 595
% # ...remaining for further processing: 4532
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 2
% # Backward-rewritten : 64
% # Generated clauses : 1365148
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 1362751
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 1365139
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 4466
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 3043
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% # Negative unit clauses : 15
% # Non-unit-clauses : 1407
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1357276
% # ...number of literals in the above : 1918101
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 104182
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 98325
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 37874
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 83687
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 24
% # Backwards rewriting index: 3761 leaves, 2.43+/-10.184 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 406 leaves, 8.44+/-19.207 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 3289 leaves, 2.09+/-7.248 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 25.040 s
% # System time : 1.402 s
% # Total time : 26.442 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 50.20 CPU 51.31 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 50.20 CPU 51.31 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP9937/SEU097+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------