TSTP Solution File: SWV278-2 by Twee---2.4.2

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem  : SWV278-2 : 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 : n024.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 23:03:24 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.37s
% Output   : Proof 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : SWV278-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.12/0.34  % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.12/0.34  % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 09:41:52 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.37  Command-line arguments: --no-flatten-goal
% 0.19/0.37  
% 0.19/0.37  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.37  
% 0.19/0.37  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.19/0.37  Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 0.19/0.37    fof(cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0, axiom, ![V_X, V_H]: (~c_in(V_X, c_Message_Oanalz(V_H), tc_Message_Omsg) | c_in(V_X, c_Message_Oparts(V_H), tc_Message_Omsg))).
% 0.19/0.37    fof(cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0, axiom, ![V_y]: c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(V_y))=V_y).
% 0.19/0.37    fof(cls_conjecture_1, negated_conjecture, ~c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg)).
% 0.19/0.37    fof(cls_conjecture_3, negated_conjecture, c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg)).
% 0.19/0.37  
% 0.19/0.37  Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 0.19/0.37  http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 0.19/0.37  We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 0.19/0.37    fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 0.19/0.37    C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 0.19/0.37  where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 0.19/0.37  variables of u and v.
% 0.19/0.37  A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 0.19/0.37  input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 0.19/0.37  
% 0.19/0.37  The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 0.19/0.38  
% 0.19/0.38  Axiom 1 (cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0): c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(X)) = X.
% 0.19/0.38  Axiom 2 (cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0): fresh(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.19/0.38  Axiom 3 (cls_conjecture_3): c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg) = true.
% 0.19/0.38  Axiom 4 (cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0): fresh(c_in(X, c_Message_Oanalz(Y), tc_Message_Omsg), true, X, Y) = c_in(X, c_Message_Oparts(Y), tc_Message_Omsg).
% 0.19/0.38  
% 0.19/0.38  Goal 1 (cls_conjecture_1): c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg) = true.
% 0.19/0.38  Proof:
% 0.19/0.38    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg)
% 0.19/0.38  = { by axiom 1 (cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0) }
% 0.19/0.38    c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), c_Message_Oparts(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg)
% 0.19/0.38  = { by axiom 4 (cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0) R->L }
% 0.19/0.38    fresh(c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), c_Message_Oanalz(v_H), tc_Message_Omsg), true, c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), v_H)
% 0.19/0.38  = { by axiom 3 (cls_conjecture_3) }
% 0.19/0.38    fresh(true, true, c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H), v_H)
% 0.19/0.38  = { by axiom 2 (cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0) }
% 0.19/0.38    true
% 0.19/0.38  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.19/0.38  
% 0.19/0.38  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------