TSTP Solution File: SWV963-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SWV963-1 : 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 23:06:55 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 17.65s 2.87s
% Output : Proof 17.65s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.12 % Problem : SWV963-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.08/0.13 % 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 : n002.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 07:16:20 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 17.65/2.87 Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 9 --flip-ordering --complete-subsets --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10
% 17.65/2.87
% 17.65/2.87 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 17.65/2.88
% 17.65/2.88 % SZS output start Proof
% 17.65/2.88 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 17.65/2.89 fof(cls_CHAINED_0, axiom, c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P, v_h_Ha____, v_E____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____))).
% 17.65/2.89 fof(cls_CHAINED_1, axiom, hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P, tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)), tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))), v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____)), v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____))).
% 17.65/2.89 fof(cls_conjecture_0, negated_conjecture, ~v_thesis____).
% 17.65/2.89 fof(cls_conjecture_1, negated_conjecture, ![V_x]: (v_thesis____ | (~hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P, tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)), tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))), V_x), v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)) | ~c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P, v_h_Ha____, v_E____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, V_x)))).
% 17.65/2.89
% 17.65/2.89 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 17.65/2.89 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 17.65/2.89 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 17.65/2.89 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 17.65/2.89 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 17.65/2.89 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 17.65/2.89 variables of u and v.
% 17.65/2.89 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 17.65/2.89 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 17.65/2.89
% 17.65/2.89 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 17.65/2.89
% 17.65/2.89 Axiom 1 (cls_conjecture_1): fresh146(X, X) = true2.
% 17.65/2.89 Axiom 2 (cls_conjecture_1): fresh147(X, X, Y) = v_thesis____.
% 17.65/2.89 Axiom 3 (cls_CHAINED_0): c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P, v_h_Ha____, v_E____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____)) = true2.
% 17.65/2.89 Axiom 4 (cls_conjecture_1): fresh147(hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P, tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)), tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))), X), v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)), true2, X) = fresh146(c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P, v_h_Ha____, v_E____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, X), true2).
% 17.65/2.89 Axiom 5 (cls_CHAINED_1): hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P, tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)), tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))), v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____)), v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)) = true2.
% 17.65/2.89
% 17.65/2.89 Goal 1 (cls_conjecture_0): v_thesis____ = true2.
% 17.65/2.89 Proof:
% 17.65/2.89 v_thesis____
% 17.65/2.89 = { by axiom 2 (cls_conjecture_1) R->L }
% 17.65/2.89 fresh147(true2, true2, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____))
% 17.65/2.89 = { by axiom 5 (cls_CHAINED_1) R->L }
% 17.65/2.89 fresh147(hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(c_TypeRel_Owiden(v_P, tc_prod(tc_List_Olist(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)), tc_Expr_Oexp(tc_List_Olist(tc_String_Ochar)))), v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____)), v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____)), true2, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____))
% 17.65/2.89 = { by axiom 4 (cls_conjecture_1) }
% 17.65/2.89 fresh146(c_WellTypeRT_OWTrt(v_P, v_h_Ha____, v_E____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_sko__CHAINED__1(v_E____, v_P, v_T_092_060_094isub_0622____, v_e_092_060_094isub_0622_H____, v_h_Ha____)), true2)
% 17.65/2.89 = { by axiom 3 (cls_CHAINED_0) }
% 17.65/2.89 fresh146(true2, true2)
% 17.65/2.89 = { by axiom 1 (cls_conjecture_1) }
% 17.65/2.89 true2
% 17.65/2.89 % SZS output end Proof
% 17.65/2.89
% 17.65/2.89 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------