TSTP Solution File: SWV232+1 by SRASS---0.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : SWV232+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 : art06.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 08:46:45 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 1.15s
% Output : Solution 1.15s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP18245/SWV232+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP18245/SWV232+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP18245/SWV232+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 18341
% 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(85, conjecture,(![X4]:![X14]:((((leq(n0,X4)&leq(n0,X14))&leq(X4,n5))&leq(X14,n5))=>a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X4,X14)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X4))=>![X17]:![X24]:((((leq(n0,X17)&leq(n0,X24))&leq(X17,n2))&leq(X24,n2))=>(((((((((((~((n0=X17&n1=X24))&~((n0=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n0=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n1=X17&n1=X24)))&~((n1=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n1=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n2=X17&n2=X24)))&n0=X24)&n1=X17)&n1=X24)&n2=X17)=>a_select2(rho,n1)=n0))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', quaternion_ds1_symm_0841)).
% fof(86, negated_conjecture,~((![X4]:![X14]:((((leq(n0,X4)&leq(n0,X14))&leq(X4,n5))&leq(X14,n5))=>a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X4,X14)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X4))=>![X17]:![X24]:((((leq(n0,X17)&leq(n0,X24))&leq(X17,n2))&leq(X24,n2))=>(((((((((((~((n0=X17&n1=X24))&~((n0=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n0=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n1=X17&n1=X24)))&~((n1=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n1=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n2=X17&n2=X24)))&n0=X24)&n1=X17)&n1=X24)&n2=X17)=>a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[85])).
% fof(89, plain,![X24]:![X17]:(epred2_2(X17,X24)=>((((((((((~((n0=X17&n1=X24))&~((n0=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n0=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n1=X17&n1=X24)))&~((n1=X17&n2=X24)))&~((n1=X24&n2=X17)))&~((n2=X17&n2=X24)))&n0=X24)&n1=X17)&n1=X24)&n2=X17)),introduced(definition)).
% fof(91, negated_conjecture,~((![X4]:![X14]:((((leq(n0,X4)&leq(n0,X14))&leq(X4,n5))&leq(X14,n5))=>a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X4,X14)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X4))=>![X17]:![X24]:((((leq(n0,X17)&leq(n0,X24))&leq(X17,n2))&leq(X24,n2))=>(epred2_2(X17,X24)=>a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(apply_def,[status(esa)],[86,89,theory(equality)])).
% fof(376, negated_conjecture,(![X4]:![X14]:((((~(leq(n0,X4))|~(leq(n0,X14)))|~(leq(X4,n5)))|~(leq(X14,n5)))|a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X4,X14)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X4))&?[X17]:?[X24]:((((leq(n0,X17)&leq(n0,X24))&leq(X17,n2))&leq(X24,n2))&(epred2_2(X17,X24)&~(a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[91])).
% fof(377, negated_conjecture,(![X25]:![X26]:((((~(leq(n0,X25))|~(leq(n0,X26)))|~(leq(X25,n5)))|~(leq(X26,n5)))|a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X25,X26)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X26,X25))&?[X27]:?[X28]:((((leq(n0,X27)&leq(n0,X28))&leq(X27,n2))&leq(X28,n2))&(epred2_2(X27,X28)&~(a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[376])).
% fof(378, negated_conjecture,(![X25]:![X26]:((((~(leq(n0,X25))|~(leq(n0,X26)))|~(leq(X25,n5)))|~(leq(X26,n5)))|a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X25,X26)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X26,X25))&((((leq(n0,esk24_0)&leq(n0,esk25_0))&leq(esk24_0,n2))&leq(esk25_0,n2))&(epred2_2(esk24_0,esk25_0)&~(a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[377])).
% fof(379, negated_conjecture,![X25]:![X26]:(((((~(leq(n0,X25))|~(leq(n0,X26)))|~(leq(X25,n5)))|~(leq(X26,n5)))|a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X25,X26)=a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X26,X25))&((((leq(n0,esk24_0)&leq(n0,esk25_0))&leq(esk24_0,n2))&leq(esk25_0,n2))&(epred2_2(esk24_0,esk25_0)&~(a_select2(rho,n1)=n0)))),inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[378])).
% cnf(381,negated_conjecture,(epred2_2(esk24_0,esk25_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[379])).
% fof(416, plain,![X24]:![X17]:(~(epred2_2(X17,X24))|(((((((((((~(n0=X17)|~(n1=X24))&(~(n0=X17)|~(n2=X24)))&(~(n0=X24)|~(n2=X17)))&(~(n1=X17)|~(n1=X24)))&(~(n1=X17)|~(n2=X24)))&(~(n1=X24)|~(n2=X17)))&(~(n2=X17)|~(n2=X24)))&n0=X24)&n1=X17)&n1=X24)&n2=X17)),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[89])).
% fof(417, plain,![X25]:![X26]:(~(epred2_2(X26,X25))|(((((((((((~(n0=X26)|~(n1=X25))&(~(n0=X26)|~(n2=X25)))&(~(n0=X25)|~(n2=X26)))&(~(n1=X26)|~(n1=X25)))&(~(n1=X26)|~(n2=X25)))&(~(n1=X25)|~(n2=X26)))&(~(n2=X26)|~(n2=X25)))&n0=X25)&n1=X26)&n1=X25)&n2=X26)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[416])).
% fof(418, plain,![X25]:![X26]:((((((((((((~(n0=X26)|~(n1=X25))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25)))&((~(n0=X26)|~(n2=X25))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&((~(n0=X25)|~(n2=X26))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&((~(n1=X26)|~(n1=X25))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&((~(n1=X26)|~(n2=X25))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&((~(n1=X25)|~(n2=X26))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&((~(n2=X26)|~(n2=X25))|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&(n0=X25|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&(n1=X26|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&(n1=X25|~(epred2_2(X26,X25))))&(n2=X26|~(epred2_2(X26,X25)))),inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[417])).
% cnf(419,plain,(n2=X1|~epred2_2(X1,X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[418])).
% cnf(422,plain,(n0=X2|~epred2_2(X1,X2)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[418])).
% cnf(427,plain,(~epred2_2(X1,X2)|n2!=X1|n0!=X2),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[418])).
% cnf(458,plain,(n0!=X2|~epred2_2(X1,X2)),inference(csr,[status(thm)],[427,419])).
% cnf(459,plain,(~epred2_2(X1,X2)),inference(csr,[status(thm)],[458,422])).
% cnf(460,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(sr,[status(thm)],[381,459,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(461,negated_conjecture,($false),460,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 39
% # ...of these trivial : 0
% # ...subsumed : 0
% # ...remaining for further processing: 39
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 0
% # Generated clauses : 1
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 0
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% # Paramodulations : 0
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 38
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 30
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% # Negative unit clauses : 4
% # Non-unit-clauses : 4
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 169
% # ...number of literals in the above : 796
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 4
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 0
% # Backwards rewriting index: 46 leaves, 1.02+/-0.146 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 30 leaves, 1.00+/-0.000 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 44 leaves, 1.02+/-0.149 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.030 s
% # System time : 0.004 s
% # Total time : 0.034 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.14 CPU 0.22 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.14 CPU 0.22 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP18245/SWV232+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------