TSTP Solution File: SWV772-1 by Twee---2.4.2

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem  : SWV772-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 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 : n002.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 23:06:13 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 5.66s 1.36s
% Output   : Proof 5.66s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13  % Problem  : SWV772-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.15/0.34  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.34  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.34  % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 08:00:20 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 5.66/1.36  Command-line arguments: --kbo-weight0 --lhs-weight 5 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10 --goal-heuristic
% 5.66/1.36  
% 5.66/1.36  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 5.66/1.36  
% 5.66/1.36  % SZS output start Proof
% 5.66/1.36  Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 5.66/1.36    fof(cls_append__Nil_0, axiom, ![T_a, V_ys]: c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(T_a), V_ys, T_a)=V_ys).
% 5.66/1.36    fof(cls_conjecture_0, negated_conjecture, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A, v_B, v_X), c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent))!=c_Set_Oinsert(v_X, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)), tc_Message_Omsg)).
% 5.66/1.36    fof(cls_knows__Spy__Says_0, axiom, ![V_X, V_evs, V_B, V_A]: c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(V_A, V_B, V_X), V_evs, tc_Event_Oevent))=c_Set_Oinsert(V_X, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, V_evs), tc_Message_Omsg)).
% 5.66/1.37  
% 5.66/1.37  Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 5.66/1.37  http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 5.66/1.37  We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 5.66/1.37    fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 5.66/1.37    C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 5.66/1.37  where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 5.66/1.37  variables of u and v.
% 5.66/1.37  A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 5.66/1.37  input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 5.66/1.37  
% 5.66/1.37  The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 5.66/1.37  
% 5.66/1.37  Axiom 1 (cls_append__Nil_0): c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(X), Y, X) = Y.
% 5.66/1.37  Axiom 2 (cls_knows__Spy__Says_0): c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(X, Y, Z), W, tc_Event_Oevent)) = c_Set_Oinsert(Z, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, W), tc_Message_Omsg).
% 5.66/1.37  
% 5.66/1.37  Goal 1 (cls_conjecture_0): c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A, v_B, v_X), c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent)) = c_Set_Oinsert(v_X, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)), tc_Message_Omsg).
% 5.66/1.37  Proof:
% 5.66/1.37    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Oappend(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A, v_B, v_X), c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent))
% 5.66/1.37  = { by axiom 1 (cls_append__Nil_0) }
% 5.66/1.37    c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_OCons(c_Event_Oevent_OSays(v_A, v_B, v_X), c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent), tc_Event_Oevent))
% 5.66/1.37  = { by axiom 2 (cls_knows__Spy__Says_0) }
% 5.66/1.37    c_Set_Oinsert(v_X, c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy, c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Event_Oevent)), tc_Message_Omsg)
% 5.66/1.37  % SZS output end Proof
% 5.66/1.37  
% 5.66/1.37  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------