TSTP Solution File: SWC398-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SWC398-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% Computer : n002.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 : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 20:55:22 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 31.89s 4.54s
% Output : Proof 31.89s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SWC398-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.14/0.33 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 18:11:49 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 31.89/4.54 Command-line arguments: --kbo-weight0 --lhs-weight 5 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10 --goal-heuristic
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 % SZS output start Proof
% 31.89/4.54 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 31.89/4.54 fof(clause140, axiom, ![U, V, W]: (~memberP(U, V) | (~ssList(W) | (~ssList(U) | (~ssItem(V) | memberP(app(U, W), V)))))).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_11, negated_conjecture, ssItem(sk6)).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_12, negated_conjecture, memberP(sk1, sk6)).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_13, negated_conjecture, ~memberP(sk2, sk6)).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_3, negated_conjecture, ssList(sk3)).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_5, negated_conjecture, sk2=sk4).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_6, negated_conjecture, sk1=sk3).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_7, negated_conjecture, ssList(sk5)).
% 31.89/4.54 fof(co1_8, negated_conjecture, app(sk3, sk5)=sk4).
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 31.89/4.54 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 31.89/4.54 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 31.89/4.54 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 31.89/4.54 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 31.89/4.54 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 31.89/4.54 variables of u and v.
% 31.89/4.54 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 31.89/4.54 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 1 (co1_5): sk2 = sk4.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 2 (co1_6): sk1 = sk3.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 3 (co1_3): ssList(sk3) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 4 (co1_7): ssList(sk5) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 5 (co1_11): ssItem(sk6) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 6 (co1_8): app(sk3, sk5) = sk4.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 7 (co1_12): memberP(sk1, sk6) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 8 (clause140): fresh212(X, X, Y, Z, W) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 9 (clause140): fresh210(X, X, Y, Z, W) = memberP(app(Y, W), Z).
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 10 (clause140): fresh211(X, X, Y, Z, W) = fresh212(ssList(Y), true2, Y, Z, W).
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 11 (clause140): fresh209(X, X, Y, Z, W) = fresh210(ssList(W), true2, Y, Z, W).
% 31.89/4.54 Axiom 12 (clause140): fresh209(memberP(X, Y), true2, X, Y, Z) = fresh211(ssItem(Y), true2, X, Y, Z).
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 Goal 1 (co1_13): memberP(sk2, sk6) = true2.
% 31.89/4.54 Proof:
% 31.89/4.54 memberP(sk2, sk6)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 1 (co1_5) }
% 31.89/4.54 memberP(sk4, sk6)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 6 (co1_8) R->L }
% 31.89/4.54 memberP(app(sk3, sk5), sk6)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 9 (clause140) R->L }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh210(true2, true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 4 (co1_7) R->L }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh210(ssList(sk5), true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 11 (clause140) R->L }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh209(true2, true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 7 (co1_12) R->L }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh209(memberP(sk1, sk6), true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 2 (co1_6) }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh209(memberP(sk3, sk6), true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 12 (clause140) }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh211(ssItem(sk6), true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 5 (co1_11) }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh211(true2, true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 10 (clause140) }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh212(ssList(sk3), true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 3 (co1_3) }
% 31.89/4.54 fresh212(true2, true2, sk3, sk6, sk5)
% 31.89/4.54 = { by axiom 8 (clause140) }
% 31.89/4.54 true2
% 31.89/4.54 % SZS output end Proof
% 31.89/4.54
% 31.89/4.54 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------