TSTP Solution File: SWW410-1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : SWW410-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n027.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 : Thu Jul 21 01:26:48 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 30.66s 30.83s
% Output : Refutation 30.66s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SWW410-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Jun 5 13:22:38 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.36 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.14/0.36 The process was started by sandbox on n027.cluster.edu,
% 0.14/0.36 Sun Jun 5 13:22:38 2022
% 0.14/0.36 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 12783.
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.14/0.36 set(auto).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.14/0.36 clear(print_given).
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 list(usable).
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=1, symmetry=0, max_lits=3.
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 This ia a non-Horn set with equality. The strategy will be
% 0.14/0.36 Knuth-Bendix, ordered hyper_res, ur_res, factoring, and
% 0.14/0.36 unit deletion, with positive clauses in sos and nonpositive
% 0.14/0.36 clauses in usable.
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(knuth_bendix).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(para_from).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(para_into).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(para_from_right).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: clear(para_into_right).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(para_from_vars).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(eq_units_both_ways).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(dynamic_demod_all).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(dynamic_demod).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(order_eq).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(back_demod).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(lrpo).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.14/0.36 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 ------------> process usable:
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 ------------> process sos:
% 0.14/0.36 Following clause subsumed by 19 during input processing: 0 [copy,19,flip.1] {-} sep(A,sep(B,C))=sep(B,sep(A,C)).
% 0.14/0.36 Following clause subsumed by 23 during input processing: 0 [copy,23,flip.1] {-} A=A.
% 0.14/0.36
% 0.14/0.36 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.14/0.38 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.14/0.38 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.14/0.38 number of clauses in intial UL: 15
% 0.14/0.38 number of clauses initially in problem: 20
% 0.14/0.38 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 75
% 0.14/0.38 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 100
% 0.14/0.38 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.14/0.38 absolute distinct symbol count: 10
% 0.14/0.38 distinct predicate count: 2
% 0.14/0.38 distinct function count: 3
% 0.14/0.38 distinct constant count: 5
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38
% 0.14/0.38 =========== start of search ===========
% 3.97/4.18
% 3.97/4.18
% 3.97/4.18 Changing weight limit from 60 to 55.
% 3.97/4.18
% 3.97/4.18 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 3.97/4.18
% 3.97/4.18 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 3.97/4.18
% 3.97/4.18 Resetting weight limit to 55 after 45 givens.
% 3.97/4.18
% 10.64/10.81
% 10.64/10.81
% 10.64/10.81 Changing weight limit from 55 to 45.
% 10.64/10.81
% 10.64/10.81 Resetting weight limit to 45 after 65 givens.
% 10.64/10.81
% 12.12/12.36
% 12.12/12.36
% 12.12/12.36 Changing weight limit from 45 to 43.
% 12.12/12.36
% 12.12/12.36 Resetting weight limit to 43 after 70 givens.
% 12.12/12.36
% 13.95/14.13
% 13.95/14.13
% 13.95/14.13 Changing weight limit from 43 to 40.
% 13.95/14.13
% 13.95/14.13 Resetting weight limit to 40 after 75 givens.
% 13.95/14.13
% 14.78/14.98
% 14.78/14.98
% 14.78/14.98 Changing weight limit from 40 to 39.
% 14.78/14.98
% 14.78/14.98 Resetting weight limit to 39 after 80 givens.
% 14.78/14.98
% 15.40/15.57
% 15.40/15.57
% 15.40/15.57 Changing weight limit from 39 to 38.
% 15.40/15.57
% 15.40/15.57 Resetting weight limit to 38 after 85 givens.
% 15.40/15.57
% 16.10/16.34
% 16.10/16.34
% 16.10/16.34 Changing weight limit from 38 to 37.
% 16.10/16.34
% 16.10/16.34 Resetting weight limit to 37 after 95 givens.
% 16.10/16.34
% 17.83/18.02
% 17.83/18.02
% 17.83/18.02 Changing weight limit from 37 to 34.
% 17.83/18.02
% 17.83/18.02 Resetting weight limit to 34 after 100 givens.
% 17.83/18.02
% 18.26/18.47
% 18.26/18.47
% 18.26/18.47 Changing weight limit from 34 to 33.
% 18.26/18.47
% 18.26/18.47 Resetting weight limit to 33 after 105 givens.
% 18.26/18.47
% 19.00/19.16
% 19.00/19.16
% 19.00/19.16 Changing weight limit from 33 to 32.
% 19.00/19.16
% 19.00/19.16 Resetting weight limit to 32 after 115 givens.
% 19.00/19.16
% 20.55/20.71
% 20.55/20.71
% 20.55/20.71 Changing weight limit from 32 to 31.
% 20.55/20.71
% 20.55/20.71 Resetting weight limit to 31 after 140 givens.
% 20.55/20.71
% 22.54/22.74
% 22.54/22.74
% 22.54/22.74 Changing weight limit from 31 to 30.
% 22.54/22.74
% 22.54/22.74 Resetting weight limit to 30 after 150 givens.
% 22.54/22.74
% 22.79/23.00
% 22.79/23.00
% 22.79/23.00 Changing weight limit from 30 to 29.
% 22.79/23.00
% 22.79/23.00 Resetting weight limit to 29 after 155 givens.
% 22.79/23.00
% 23.67/23.91
% 23.67/23.91
% 23.67/23.91 Changing weight limit from 29 to 28.
% 23.67/23.91
% 23.67/23.91 Resetting weight limit to 28 after 175 givens.
% 23.67/23.91
% 27.37/27.59
% 27.37/27.59
% 27.37/27.59 Changing weight limit from 28 to 26.
% 27.37/27.59
% 27.37/27.59 Resetting weight limit to 26 after 230 givens.
% 27.37/27.59
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 -- HEY sandbox, WE HAVE A PROOF!! --
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 ----> UNIT CONFLICT at 30.42 sec ----> 25699 [binary,25698.1,885.1] {-} $F.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 Length of proof is 17. Level of proof is 6.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 30.66/30.83 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 30.66/30.83 % SZS output start Refutation
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 2 [] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(nil,A),B))|A=nil.
% 30.66/30.83 6 [] {+} -heap(sep(next(A,B),sep(lseg(B,C),D)))|A=B|heap(sep(lseg(A,C),D)).
% 30.66/30.83 7 [] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(A,B),sep(lseg(B,nil),C)))|heap(sep(lseg(A,nil),C)).
% 30.66/30.83 9 [] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(A,B),sep(lseg(B,C),sep(lseg(C,D),E))))|C=D|heap(sep(lseg(A,C),sep(lseg(C,D),E))).
% 30.66/30.83 14 [] {-} x1!=x3.
% 30.66/30.83 15 [copy,14,flip.1] {+} x3!=x1.
% 30.66/30.83 17 [] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(x3,nil),sep(lseg(x2,x3),emp))).
% 30.66/30.83 19 [] {-} sep(A,sep(B,C))=sep(B,sep(A,C)).
% 30.66/30.83 21,20 [] {+} sep(lseg(A,A),B)=B.
% 30.66/30.83 22 [] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(lseg(x3,nil),sep(next(x1,x3),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 24 [para_into,19.1.1.2,19.1.1] {+} sep(A,sep(B,sep(C,D)))=sep(C,sep(A,sep(B,D))).
% 30.66/30.83 43 [para_from,19.1.1,17.1.1] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(x2,x3),sep(lseg(x3,nil),emp))).
% 30.66/30.83 45 [para_from,19.1.1,9.1.1] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(A,B),sep(lseg(C,A),sep(lseg(B,D),E))))|B=D|heap(sep(lseg(C,B),sep(lseg(B,D),E))).
% 30.66/30.83 64 [para_from,19.1.1,2.1.1] {+} -heap(sep(A,sep(lseg(nil,B),C)))|B=nil.
% 30.66/30.83 83 [para_from,20.1.1,6.1.1.2] {+} -heap(sep(next(A,B),C))|A=B|heap(sep(lseg(A,B),C)).
% 30.66/30.83 157 [para_into,22.1.1.2,19.1.1] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(next(x1,x3),sep(lseg(x3,nil),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 164 [para_into,22.1.1,19.1.1] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x3,nil),sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(next(x1,x3),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 249 [para_into,157.1.1,19.1.1] {-} heap(sep(next(x1,x3),sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(lseg(x3,nil),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 387 [para_into,164.1.1,24.1.1] {-} heap(sep(next(x1,x3),sep(lseg(x3,nil),sep(lseg(x2,x1),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 705 [hyper,387,6,unit_del,15] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x1,nil),sep(lseg(x2,x1),emp))).
% 30.66/30.83 874 [para_into,705.1.1,19.1.1] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(lseg(x1,nil),emp))).
% 30.66/30.83 885 [hyper,874,7] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x2,nil),emp)).
% 30.66/30.83 16064 [para_from,64.2.1,43.1.1.2.1.1,demod,21] {+} -heap(sep(lseg(x2,x3),emp))| -heap(sep(A,sep(lseg(nil,x3),B))).
% 30.66/30.83 25009 [hyper,83,249,unit_del,15] {-} heap(sep(lseg(x1,x3),sep(lseg(x2,x1),sep(lseg(x3,nil),emp)))).
% 30.66/30.83 25443,25442 [hyper,25009,45,unit_del,43] {-} x3=nil.
% 30.66/30.83 25698 [back_demod,16064,demod,25443,25443,21,unit_del,885] {-} -heap(sep(A,B)).
% 30.66/30.83 25699 [binary,25698.1,885.1] {-} $F.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 % SZS output end Refutation
% 30.66/30.83 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 ============ end of search ============
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 true clauses given 102 (39.4%)
% 30.66/30.83 false clauses given 157
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 FALSE TRUE
% 30.66/30.83 10 0 1
% 30.66/30.83 12 0 53
% 30.66/30.83 13 0 36
% 30.66/30.83 14 3 89
% 30.66/30.83 15 0 38
% 30.66/30.83 16 2 312
% 30.66/30.83 17 0 67
% 30.66/30.83 18 19 343
% 30.66/30.83 19 12 126
% 30.66/30.83 20 343 732
% 30.66/30.83 21 14 180
% 30.66/30.83 22 377 612
% 30.66/30.83 23 76 22
% 30.66/30.83 24 940 97
% 30.66/30.83 25 56 16
% 30.66/30.83 26 741 120
% 30.66/30.83 tot: 2583 2844 (52.4% true)
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 Model 2 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 30.66/30.83
% 30.66/30.83 Process 12783 finished Sun Jun 5 13:23:08 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------