TSTP Solution File: SWV256-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SWV256-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 : n022.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 23:03:14 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 219.39s 28.31s
% Output : Proof 219.39s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SWV256-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 06:38:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 219.39/28.31 Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 1 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 % SZS output start Proof
% 219.39/28.31 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 219.39/28.31 fof(cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0, axiom, ![V_H]: c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(V_H), c_Message_Oparts(V_H), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))).
% 219.39/28.31 fof(cls_Message_Oparts__idem_0, axiom, ![V_H2]: c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oparts(V_H2))=c_Message_Oparts(V_H2)).
% 219.39/28.31 fof(cls_Message_Oparts__mono_0, axiom, ![V_G, V_H2]: (~c_lessequals(V_G, V_H2, tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) | c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(V_G), c_Message_Oparts(V_H2), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)))).
% 219.39/28.31 fof(cls_conjecture_0, negated_conjecture, ~c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))).
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 219.39/28.31 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 219.39/28.31 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 219.39/28.31 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 219.39/28.31 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 219.39/28.31 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 219.39/28.31 variables of u and v.
% 219.39/28.31 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 219.39/28.31 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 Axiom 1 (cls_Message_Oparts__idem_0): c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oparts(X)) = c_Message_Oparts(X).
% 219.39/28.31 Axiom 2 (cls_Message_Oparts__mono_0): fresh1700(X, X, Y, Z) = true2.
% 219.39/28.31 Axiom 3 (cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0): c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X), c_Message_Oparts(X), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) = true2.
% 219.39/28.31 Axiom 4 (cls_Message_Oparts__mono_0): fresh1700(c_lessequals(X, Y, tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)), true2, X, Y) = c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(X), c_Message_Oparts(Y), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)).
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 Goal 1 (cls_conjecture_0): c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) = true2.
% 219.39/28.31 Proof:
% 219.39/28.31 c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
% 219.39/28.31 = { by axiom 1 (cls_Message_Oparts__idem_0) R->L }
% 219.39/28.31 c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)), c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oparts(v_H)), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
% 219.39/28.31 = { by axiom 4 (cls_Message_Oparts__mono_0) R->L }
% 219.39/28.31 fresh1700(c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)), true2, c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), c_Message_Oparts(v_H))
% 219.39/28.31 = { by axiom 3 (cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0) }
% 219.39/28.31 fresh1700(true2, true2, c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), c_Message_Oparts(v_H))
% 219.39/28.31 = { by axiom 2 (cls_Message_Oparts__mono_0) }
% 219.39/28.31 true2
% 219.39/28.31 % SZS output end Proof
% 219.39/28.31
% 219.39/28.31 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------