TSTP Solution File: SWV374+1 by SPASS---3.9

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SPASS---3.9
% Problem  : SWV374+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : run_spass %d %s

% Computer : n018.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 21:42:34 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 2.50s 2.67s
% Output   : Refutation 2.50s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem  : SWV374+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13  % Command  : run_spass %d %s
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n018.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  : 600
% 0.13/0.34  % DateTime : Wed Jun 15 18:23:15 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 2.50/2.67  
% 2.50/2.67  SPASS V 3.9 
% 2.50/2.67  SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 2.50/2.67  % SZS status Theorem
% 2.50/2.67  Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 
% 2.50/2.67  SPASS derived 2949 clauses, backtracked 4 clauses, performed 2 splits and kept 1818 clauses.
% 2.50/2.67  SPASS allocated 90645 KBytes.
% 2.50/2.67  SPASS spent	0:00:02.28 on the problem.
% 2.50/2.67  		0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 2.50/2.67  		0:00:00.04 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 2.50/2.67  		0:00:00.07 for inferences.
% 2.50/2.67  		0:00:00.01 for the backtracking.
% 2.50/2.67  		0:00:02.09 for the reduction.
% 2.50/2.67  
% 2.50/2.67  
% 2.50/2.67  Here is a proof with depth 3, length 24 :
% 2.50/2.67  % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.50/2.67  10[0:Inp] ||  -> ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(skc3,skc4,skc5)))*.
% 2.50/2.67  11[0:Inp] ||  -> less_than(u,v)* less_than(v,u)*.
% 2.50/2.67  13[0:Inp] || ok(triple(u,v,bad))* -> .
% 2.50/2.67  25[0:Inp] || less_than(u,v) -> less_than(v,u) strictly_less_than(u,v)*.
% 2.50/2.67  28[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,create_slb,v)),triple(u,create_slb,bad))**.
% 2.50/2.67  37[0:Inp] || contains_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3)) less_than(lookup_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3)),findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*l -> equal(skc4,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  47[0:Inp] ||  -> equal(u,create_slb) contains_slb(u,findmin_pqp_res(v)) equal(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(v,u,w)),triple(v,update_slb(u,findmin_pqp_res(v)),bad))*.
% 2.50/2.67  52[0:Inp] || strictly_less_than(findmin_pqp_res(u),lookup_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u))) contains_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)) -> equal(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,v,w)),triple(u,update_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)),bad))* equal(v,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  56[0:MRR:25.0,11.0] ||  -> strictly_less_than(u,v)* less_than(v,u).
% 2.50/2.67  57[0:MRR:52.1,47.1] || strictly_less_than(findmin_pqp_res(u),lookup_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u))) -> equal(v,create_slb) equal(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,v,w)),triple(u,update_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)),bad))*.
% 2.50/2.67  243[0:SpL:47.2,13.0] || ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,v,w)))* -> equal(v,create_slb) contains_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)).
% 2.50/2.67  260[0:Res:10.0,243.0] ||  -> equal(skc4,create_slb) contains_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*.
% 2.50/2.67  261[0:MRR:37.0,260.1] || less_than(lookup_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3)),findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*l -> equal(skc4,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  263[1:Spt:260.0] ||  -> equal(skc4,create_slb)**.
% 2.50/2.67  264[1:Rew:263.0,10.0] ||  -> ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(skc3,create_slb,skc5)))*.
% 2.50/2.67  265[1:Rew:28.0,264.0] ||  -> ok(triple(skc3,create_slb,bad))*.
% 2.50/2.67  266[1:MRR:265.0,13.0] ||  -> .
% 2.50/2.67  267[1:Spt:266.0,260.0,263.0] || equal(skc4,create_slb)** -> .
% 2.50/2.67  268[1:Spt:266.0,260.1] ||  -> contains_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*.
% 2.50/2.67  269[1:MRR:261.1,267.0] || less_than(lookup_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3)),findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*l -> .
% 2.50/2.67  338[0:SpL:57.2,13.0] || strictly_less_than(findmin_pqp_res(u),lookup_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)))*+ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,v,w)))* -> equal(v,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  442[0:Res:56.0,338.0] || ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(u,v,w)))* -> less_than(lookup_slb(v,findmin_pqp_res(u)),findmin_pqp_res(u)) equal(v,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  3461[0:Res:10.0,442.0] ||  -> less_than(lookup_slb(skc4,findmin_pqp_res(skc3)),findmin_pqp_res(skc3))*l equal(skc4,create_slb).
% 2.50/2.67  3462[1:MRR:3461.0,3461.1,269.0,267.0] ||  -> .
% 2.50/2.67  % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.50/2.67  Formulae used in the proof : l10_co totality ax40 stricly_smaller_definition ax46 ax47 ax48
% 2.50/2.67  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------