TSTP Solution File: SWC337-1 by Gandalf---c-2.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem : SWC337-1 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : add_equality:r
% Format : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s
% Computer : art08.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 unknown
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 1000MB
% OS : Linux 2.4.22-21mdk-i686-up-4GB
% CPULimit : 600s
% Result : Timeout 607.0s
% Output : None
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----NO SOLUTION OUTPUT BY SYSTEM
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
%
% Gandalf c-2.6 r1 starting to prove: /home/graph/tptp/TSTP/PreparedTPTP/otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)---add_equality:r/SWC/SWC337-1+eq_r.in
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
%
% prove-all-passes started
%
% detected problem class: neq
% detected subclass: big
%
% strategies selected:
% (hyper 28 #f 5 19)
% (binary-unit 28 #f 5 19)
% (binary-double 11 #f 5 19)
% (binary-double 17 #f)
% (binary-double 17 #t)
% (binary 87 #t 5 19)
% (binary-order 28 #f 5 19)
% (binary-posweight-order 58 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-big-order 28 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-small-order 11 #f)
% (binary-order-sos 28 #t)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 28 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 28 #f)
% (binary-weightorder-sos 17 #f)
% (binary-order 28 #f)
% (hyper-order 17 #f)
% (binary 141 #t)
%
%
% SOS clause
% -segment^p(sk2,sk1) | -totalordered^p(sk1).
% was split for some strategies as:
% -segment^p(sk2,sk1).
% -totalordered^p(sk1).
%
% Starting a split proof attempt with 2 components.
%
% Split component 1 started.
%
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split:
% -segment^p(sk2,sk1) | -totalordered^p(sk1).
% Split part used next: -segment^p(sk2,sk1).
% END OF PROOFPART
% ********* EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED *********
%
%
% timer checkpoints: c(195,40,1,390,0,1,32191,4,980,33623,63,1302,33623,1,1302,33623,50,1304,33623,40,1304,33818,0,1314,76736,3,1967,94903,4,2293,110223,5,2618,110223,5,2620,110223,1,2620,110223,50,2622,110223,40,2622,110418,0,2622,137496,3,2880,147546,4,2999,155076,5,3123,155077,5,3124,155078,1,3124,155078,50,3125,155078,40,3125,155273,0,3125,195826,3,3526,210512,4,3728,222307,5,3926,222308,5,3927,222308,1,3927,222308,50,3929,222308,40,3929,222503,0,3929,264649,3,4330,275443,4,4530,287897,5,4730,287897,5,4731,287898,1,4731,287898,50,4733,287898,40,4733,288093,0,4733,392944,3,6884,411077,4,7964,442815,5,9034,442815,5,9035,442816,1,9035,442816,50,9037,442816,40,9037,443011,0,9037,472845,3,9688,473571,4,10013,476720,5,10338,476721,1,10338,476721,50,10339,476721,40,10339,476916,0,10339,645401,3,11741,668133,4,12440,712487,5,13141,712488,5,13142,712489,1,13142,712489,50,13148,712489,40,13148,712684,0,13180,771511,3,13832,788735,4,14156,841625,5,14482,841626,1,14482,841626,50,14488,841626,40,14488,841821,0,14522,866343,3,14773,876633,4,14898,898312,5,15023,898312,5,15023,898312,1,15023,898312,50,15026,898312,40,15026,898507,0,15026,928710,3,15677,929387,4,16002,932578,1,16327,932578,50,16328,932578,40,16328,932773,0,16328,988659,3,16981,1003468,4,17306,1015416,62,17629,1015416,5,17630,1015417,1,17630,1015417,50,17633,1015417,40,17633,1015612,0,17633,1040075,3,18284,1040829,4,18609,1044670,5,18934,1044671,1,18934,1044671,50,18935,1044671,40,18935,1044866,0,18935,1079303,5,19736,1079306,1,19736,1079306,50,19737,1079306,40,19737,1079501,0,19737,1106761,5,21042,1106761,1,21042,1106761,50,21043,1106761,40,21043,1106956,0,21043,1361737,4,21701,1373742,5,21844,1373743,1,21845,1373743,50,21848,1373743,40,21848,1373938,0,21874,1406836,5,30199,1406838,1,30199,1406838,50,30200,1406838,40,30200,1406838,40,30200,1407033,0,30201)
%
%
% START OF PROOF
% 1407025 [] -segment^p(sk2,sk1).
% 1407027 [] segment^p(sk4,sk3).
% 1407028 [] equal(sk1,sk3).
% 1407029 [] equal(sk2,sk4).
% 1407035 [para:1407028.1.2,1407027.1.2] segment^p(sk4,sk1).
% 1407037 [para:1407029.1.2,1407035.1.1,cut:1407025] contradiction
% END OF PROOF
%
% Proof found by the following strategy:
%
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% Split component 2 started.
%
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split:
% -segment^p(sk2,sk1) | -totalordered^p(sk1).
% Split part used next: -totalordered^p(sk1).
% END OF PROOFPART
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 4
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 42
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 19
% clause depth limited to 5
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 28
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring smaller arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit paramodulation strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 12
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% using hyperresolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% seconds given: 8
%
%
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
%
% old unit clauses discarded
%
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 470
%
% Wow, gandalf-wrapper got a signal XCPU
% Xcpu signal caught by Gandalf: stopping
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------