TSTP Solution File: SWV115+1 by SPASS---3.9
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SPASS---3.9
% Problem : SWV115+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : run_spass %d %s
% Computer : n011.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 : Wed Jul 20 21:41:20 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 2.44s 2.65s
% Output : Refutation 2.44s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SWV115+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.12 % Command : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 10:07:50 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 2.44/2.65
% 2.44/2.65 SPASS V 3.9
% 2.44/2.65 SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 2.44/2.65 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.44/2.65 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.44/2.65 SPASS derived 6552 clauses, backtracked 510 clauses, performed 5 splits and kept 3765 clauses.
% 2.44/2.65 SPASS allocated 91691 KBytes.
% 2.44/2.65 SPASS spent 0:00:02.27 on the problem.
% 2.44/2.65 0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 2.44/2.65 0:00:00.09 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 2.44/2.65 0:00:00.05 for inferences.
% 2.44/2.65 0:00:00.05 for the backtracking.
% 2.44/2.65 0:00:01.90 for the reduction.
% 2.44/2.65
% 2.44/2.65
% 2.44/2.65 Here is a proof with depth 1, length 40 :
% 2.44/2.65 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.44/2.65 1[0:Inp] || -> SkC0*.
% 2.44/2.65 2[0:Inp] || -> SkC1*.
% 2.44/2.65 3[0:Inp] || -> SkC2*.
% 2.44/2.65 8[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,skc9)*r.
% 2.44/2.65 9[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,skc8)*r.
% 2.44/2.65 10[0:Inp] || -> leq(n0,pv5)*r.
% 2.44/2.65 48[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(n0),n1)**.
% 2.44/2.65 56[0:Inp] || -> leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 57[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(n0)),n2)**.
% 2.44/2.65 74[0:Inp] || -> equal(pred(succ(u)),u)**.
% 2.44/2.65 76[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(n0))),n3)**.
% 2.44/2.65 81[0:Inp] || -> equal(minus(u,n1),pred(u))**.
% 2.44/2.65 83[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0)))),n4)**.
% 2.44/2.65 93[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0))))),n5)**.
% 2.44/2.65 109[0:Inp] || -> equal(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(n0)))))),n6)**.
% 2.44/2.65 136[0:Inp] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc9,minus(n6,n1))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 137[0:Inp] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc8,minus(n6,n1))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 142[0:Inp] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,minus(n999,n1)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> .
% 2.44/2.65 148[0:Inp] || leq(n0,u) leq(u,minus(n6,n1)) leq(n0,v) leq(v,minus(n6,n1)) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u))*.
% 2.44/2.65 171[0:Rew:48.0,57.0] || -> equal(succ(n1),n2)**.
% 2.44/2.65 174[0:Rew:171.0,76.0,48.0,76.0] || -> equal(succ(n2),n3)**.
% 2.44/2.65 176[0:Rew:174.0,83.0,171.0,83.0,48.0,83.0] || -> equal(succ(n3),n4)**.
% 2.44/2.65 179[0:Rew:176.0,93.0,174.0,93.0,171.0,93.0,48.0,93.0] || -> equal(succ(n4),n5)**.
% 2.44/2.65 182[0:Rew:179.0,109.0,176.0,109.0,174.0,109.0,171.0,109.0,48.0,109.0] || -> equal(succ(n5),n6)**.
% 2.44/2.65 185[0:Rew:81.0,56.0] || -> leq(pv5,pred(n999))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 189[0:Rew:81.0,136.5,81.0,136.1] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc9,pred(n6))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 190[0:MRR:189.0,189.1,189.2,189.3,189.4,10.0,185.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || -> leq(skc9,pred(n6))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 191[0:Rew:81.0,137.5,81.0,137.1] || leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> leq(skc8,pred(n6))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 192[0:MRR:191.0,191.1,191.2,191.3,191.4,10.0,185.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || -> leq(skc8,pred(n6))*r.
% 2.44/2.65 193[0:Rew:81.0,142.2] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** leq(n0,pv5) leq(pv5,pred(n999)) SkC0 SkC1 SkC2 -> .
% 2.44/2.65 194[0:MRR:193.1,193.2,193.3,193.4,193.5,10.0,185.0,1.0,2.0,3.0] || equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc9,skc8),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))** -> .
% 2.44/2.65 195[0:Rew:81.0,148.3,81.0,148.1] || leq(u,pred(n6)) leq(v,pred(n6)) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 2.44/2.65 836[0:SpR:182.0,74.0] || -> equal(pred(n6),n5)**.
% 2.44/2.65 846[0:Rew:836.0,195.0] || leq(u,n5) leq(v,pred(n6)) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 2.44/2.65 851[0:Rew:836.0,190.0] || -> leq(skc9,n5)*l.
% 2.44/2.65 856[0:Rew:836.0,846.1] || leq(u,n5) leq(v,n5) leq(n0,u) leq(n0,v) -> equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,v,u),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,u,v))*.
% 2.44/2.65 8449[0:Rew:836.0,192.0] || -> leq(skc8,n5)*l.
% 2.44/2.65 9106[0:SpL:856.4,194.0] || leq(skc9,n5) leq(skc8,n5) leq(n0,skc9) leq(n0,skc8) equal(a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9),a_select3(id_ds1_filter,skc8,skc9))* -> .
% 2.44/2.65 9110[0:Obv:9106.4] || leq(skc9,n5)*l leq(skc8,n5) leq(n0,skc9) leq(n0,skc8) -> .
% 2.44/2.65 9111[0:MRR:9110.0,9110.1,9110.2,9110.3,851.0,8449.0,8.0,9.0] || -> .
% 2.44/2.65 % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.44/2.65 Formulae used in the proof : quaternion_ds1_symm_0008 gt_succ leq_succ_gt_equiv successor_1 successor_2 pred_succ successor_3 pred_minus_1 successor_4 successor_5 successor_6
% 2.44/2.65
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------