TSTP Solution File: SWV134+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : SWV134+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art05.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 2018MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Dec 30 08:35:18 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 1.65s
% Output : Solution 1.65s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP21095/SWV134+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21095/SWV134+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21095/SWV134+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 21191
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.02 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.032 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(2, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:((leq(X1,X2)&leq(X2,X3))=>leq(X1,X3)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', transitivity_leq)).
% fof(5, axiom,gt(n2,n0),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', gt_2_0)).
% fof(18, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(gt(X2,X1)=>leq(X1,X2)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', leq_gt1)).
% fof(85, conjecture,(((((((((((~(leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)))&leq(n0,s_best7))&leq(n0,s_sworst7))&leq(n0,s_worst7))&leq(n2,pv1325))&leq(s_best7,n3))&leq(s_sworst7,n3))&leq(s_worst7,n3))&leq(pv1325,n3))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7)))=>leq(n0,pv1325)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', gauss_array_0004)).
% fof(86, negated_conjecture,~((((((((((((~(leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)))&leq(n0,s_best7))&leq(n0,s_sworst7))&leq(n0,s_worst7))&leq(n2,pv1325))&leq(s_best7,n3))&leq(s_sworst7,n3))&leq(s_worst7,n3))&leq(pv1325,n3))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7)))=>leq(n0,pv1325))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[85])).
% fof(88, negated_conjecture,~((((((((((((~(leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)))&leq(n0,s_best7))&leq(n0,s_sworst7))&leq(n0,s_worst7))&leq(n2,pv1325))&leq(s_best7,n3))&leq(s_sworst7,n3))&leq(s_worst7,n3))&leq(pv1325,n3))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7)))=>leq(n0,pv1325))),inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[86,theory(equality)])).
% fof(93, plain,![X1]:![X2]:![X3]:((~(leq(X1,X2))|~(leq(X2,X3)))|leq(X1,X3)),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[2])).
% fof(94, plain,![X4]:![X5]:![X6]:((~(leq(X4,X5))|~(leq(X5,X6)))|leq(X4,X6)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[93])).
% cnf(95,plain,(leq(X1,X2)|~leq(X3,X2)|~leq(X1,X3)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[94])).
% cnf(100,plain,(gt(n2,n0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[5])).
% fof(134, plain,![X1]:![X2]:(~(gt(X2,X1))|leq(X1,X2)),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(135, plain,![X3]:![X4]:(~(gt(X4,X3))|leq(X3,X4)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[134])).
% cnf(136,plain,(leq(X1,X2)|~gt(X2,X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[135])).
% fof(375, negated_conjecture,(((((((((((~(leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)))&leq(n0,s_best7))&leq(n0,s_sworst7))&leq(n0,s_worst7))&leq(n2,pv1325))&leq(s_best7,n3))&leq(s_sworst7,n3))&leq(s_worst7,n3))&leq(pv1325,n3))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7)))&leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7)))&~(leq(n0,pv1325))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[88])).
% cnf(376,negated_conjecture,(~leq(n0,pv1325)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[375])).
% cnf(383,negated_conjecture,(leq(n2,pv1325)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[375])).
% cnf(477,plain,(leq(n0,n2)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[136,100,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(519,negated_conjecture,(leq(X1,pv1325)|~leq(X1,n2)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[95,383,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(10651,negated_conjecture,(~leq(n0,n2)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[376,519,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(10734,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[10651,477,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(10735,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[10734,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(10736,negated_conjecture,($false),10735,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 474
% # ...of these trivial : 0
% # ...subsumed : 19
% # ...remaining for further processing: 455
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 1
% # Generated clauses : 6016
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 5881
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 6005
% # Factorizations : 2
% # Equation resolutions : 9
% # Current number of processed clauses: 251
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 73
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% # Negative unit clauses : 18
% # Non-unit-clauses : 155
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5811
% # ...number of literals in the above : 36610
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3742
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1320
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 111
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 40
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 21
% # Backwards rewriting index: 278 leaves, 1.23+/-1.405 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 109 leaves, 1.03+/-0.164 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 175 leaves, 1.11+/-0.518 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.351 s
% # System time : 0.013 s
% # Total time : 0.364 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.63 CPU 0.71 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.63 CPU 0.71 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP21095/SWV134+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------