TSTP Solution File: SEU244+1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : SEU244+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n026.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 14:28:06 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.19s 1.37s
% Output : Refutation 1.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11 % Problem : SEU244+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.11 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.10/0.32 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.10/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.10/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.32 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.10/0.32 % DateTime : Mon Jun 20 10:24:56 EDT 2022
% 0.10/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.34 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.10/0.34 The process was started by sandbox on n026.cluster.edu,
% 0.10/0.34 Mon Jun 20 10:24:56 2022
% 0.10/0.34 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 26860.
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.10/0.34 set(auto).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.10/0.34 clear(print_given).
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 formula_list(usable).
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=1, symmetry=0, max_lits=7.
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 This ia a non-Horn set with equality. The strategy will be
% 0.10/0.34 Knuth-Bendix, ordered hyper_res, ur_res, factoring, and
% 0.10/0.34 unit deletion, with positive clauses in sos and nonpositive
% 0.10/0.34 clauses in usable.
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(knuth_bendix).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(para_from).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(para_into).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(para_from_right).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: clear(para_into_right).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(para_from_vars).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(eq_units_both_ways).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(dynamic_demod_all).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(dynamic_demod).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(order_eq).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(back_demod).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(lrpo).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.10/0.34 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 ------------> process usable:
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 ------------> process sos:
% 0.10/0.34 Following clause subsumed by 26 during input processing: 0 [copy,26,flip.1] {-} set_union2(A,B)=set_union2(B,A).
% 0.10/0.34 Following clause subsumed by 31 during input processing: 0 [copy,31,flip.1] {-} A=A.
% 0.10/0.34
% 0.10/0.34 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.18/0.38 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.18/0.38 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.18/0.38 number of clauses in intial UL: 24
% 0.18/0.38 number of clauses initially in problem: 30
% 0.18/0.38 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 80
% 0.18/0.38 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 100
% 0.18/0.38 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.18/0.38 absolute distinct symbol count: 19
% 0.18/0.38 distinct predicate count: 14
% 0.18/0.38 distinct function count: 4
% 0.18/0.38 distinct constant count: 1
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.18/0.38
% 0.18/0.38 =========== start of search ===========
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 -------- PROOF --------
% 1.19/1.37 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.19/1.37 % SZS output start Refutation
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 3 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 4 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 5 [ 1 1 137 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 6 [ 1 1 288 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 7 [ 1 0 224 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 8 [ 1 0 306 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 9 [ 1 0 384 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 10 [ 1 0 238 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 11 [ 1 1 5163 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 12 [ 3 0 323 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 13 [ 2 1 425 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 14 [ 3 0 370 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 15 [ 3 0 121 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 1.00 sec ----> 59 [hyper,58,25,56] {-} $F.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Length of proof is 22. Level of proof is 5.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 1.19/1.37 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.19/1.37 % SZS output start Refutation
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 1 [] {+} -relation(A)| -antisymmetric(A)|is_antisymmetric_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 2 [] {+} -relation(A)|antisymmetric(A)| -is_antisymmetric_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 3 [] {+} -relation(A)| -connected(A)|is_connected_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 4 [] {+} -relation(A)|connected(A)| -is_connected_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 5 [] {+} -relation(A)| -transitive(A)|is_transitive_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 6 [] {+} -relation(A)|transitive(A)| -is_transitive_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 7 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_ordering(A)|reflexive(A).
% 1.19/1.37 8 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_ordering(A)|transitive(A).
% 1.19/1.37 9 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_ordering(A)|antisymmetric(A).
% 1.19/1.37 10 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_ordering(A)|connected(A).
% 1.19/1.37 11 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_ordering(A)|well_founded_relation(A).
% 1.19/1.37 12 [] {+} -relation(A)|well_ordering(A)| -reflexive(A)| -transitive(A)| -antisymmetric(A)| -connected(A)| -well_founded_relation(A).
% 1.19/1.37 13 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_orders(A,B)|is_reflexive_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 14 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_orders(A,B)|is_transitive_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 15 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_orders(A,B)|is_antisymmetric_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 16 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_orders(A,B)|is_connected_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 17 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_orders(A,B)|is_well_founded_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 18 [] {+} -relation(A)|well_orders(A,B)| -is_reflexive_in(A,B)| -is_transitive_in(A,B)| -is_antisymmetric_in(A,B)| -is_connected_in(A,B)| -is_well_founded_in(A,B).
% 1.19/1.37 21 [] {+} -relation(A)| -reflexive(A)|is_reflexive_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 22 [] {+} -relation(A)|reflexive(A)| -is_reflexive_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 23 [] {+} -relation(A)| -well_founded_relation(A)|is_well_founded_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 24 [] {+} -relation(A)|well_founded_relation(A)| -is_well_founded_in(A,relation_field(A)).
% 1.19/1.37 25 [] {+} -well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))| -well_ordering($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 29 [] {+} relation($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 30 [] {-} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|well_ordering($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 35 [hyper,30,11,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|well_founded_relation($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 36 [hyper,30,10,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|connected($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 37 [hyper,30,9,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|antisymmetric($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 38 [hyper,30,8,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|transitive($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 39 [hyper,30,7,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|reflexive($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 42 [hyper,35,23,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|is_well_founded_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 43 [hyper,36,3,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|is_connected_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 44 [hyper,37,1,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|is_antisymmetric_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 45 [hyper,38,5,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|is_transitive_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 46 [hyper,39,21,29] {+} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1))|is_reflexive_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 47 [hyper,42,17,29,factor_simp] {+} is_well_founded_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 48 [hyper,47,24,29] {+} well_founded_relation($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 49 [hyper,43,16,29,factor_simp] {+} is_connected_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 50 [hyper,49,4,29] {+} connected($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 51 [hyper,44,15,29,factor_simp] {+} is_antisymmetric_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 52 [hyper,45,14,29,factor_simp] {+} is_transitive_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 53 [hyper,46,13,29,factor_simp] {+} is_reflexive_in($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 54 [hyper,52,6,29] {+} transitive($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 55 [hyper,53,22,29] {+} reflexive($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 56 [hyper,51,18,29,53,52,49,47] {-} well_orders($c1,relation_field($c1)).
% 1.19/1.37 57 [hyper,51,2,29] {+} antisymmetric($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 58 [hyper,57,12,29,55,54,50,48] {+} well_ordering($c1).
% 1.19/1.37 59 [hyper,58,25,56] {-} $F.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 % SZS output end Refutation
% 1.19/1.37 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 ============ end of search ============
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 true clauses given 14 (46.7%)
% 1.19/1.37 false clauses given 16
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 FALSE TRUE
% 1.19/1.37 tot: 0 0 (-nan% true)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Model 15 [ 3 -5 121 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 1.19/1.37
% 1.19/1.37 Process 26860 finished Mon Jun 20 10:24:57 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------