TSTP Solution File: SYN126-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SYN126-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 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 : n007.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 : Fri Sep 1 03:33:16 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 17.47s 2.65s
% Output : Proof 17.47s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYN126-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n007.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 : Sat Aug 26 20:30:27 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 17.47/2.65 Command-line arguments: --kbo-weight0 --lhs-weight 5 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10 --goal-heuristic
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 % SZS output start Proof
% 17.47/2.65 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 17.47/2.65 fof(axiom_14, axiom, ![X]: p0(b, X)).
% 17.47/2.65 fof(prove_this, negated_conjecture, ~l4(b)).
% 17.47/2.65 fof(rule_069, axiom, ![C, B]: (p1(B, B, C) | ~p0(C, B))).
% 17.47/2.65 fof(rule_137, axiom, ![A2, B2, C2]: (n2(A2) | ~p1(B2, C2, A2))).
% 17.47/2.65 fof(rule_244, axiom, ![H]: (p3(H, H, H) | ~n2(H))).
% 17.47/2.65 fof(rule_277, axiom, ![J, A, B2]: (l4(J) | ~p3(A, B2, J))).
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 17.47/2.65 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 17.47/2.65 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 17.47/2.65 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 17.47/2.65 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 17.47/2.65 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 17.47/2.65 variables of u and v.
% 17.47/2.65 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 17.47/2.65 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 1 (axiom_14): p0(b, X) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 2 (rule_137): fresh262(X, X, Y) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 3 (rule_244): fresh121(X, X, Y) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 4 (rule_277): fresh79(X, X, Y) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 5 (rule_069): fresh349(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 6 (rule_244): fresh121(n2(X), true, X) = p3(X, X, X).
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 7 (rule_069): fresh349(p0(X, Y), true, Y, X) = p1(Y, Y, X).
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 8 (rule_137): fresh262(p1(X, Y, Z), true, Z) = n2(Z).
% 17.47/2.65 Axiom 9 (rule_277): fresh79(p3(X, Y, Z), true, Z) = l4(Z).
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 Goal 1 (prove_this): l4(b) = true.
% 17.47/2.65 Proof:
% 17.47/2.65 l4(b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 9 (rule_277) R->L }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(p3(b, b, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 6 (rule_244) R->L }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(n2(b), true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 8 (rule_137) R->L }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(fresh262(p1(X, X, b), true, b), true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 7 (rule_069) R->L }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(fresh262(fresh349(p0(b, X), true, X, b), true, b), true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 1 (axiom_14) }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(fresh262(fresh349(true, true, X, b), true, b), true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 5 (rule_069) }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(fresh262(true, true, b), true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 2 (rule_137) }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(fresh121(true, true, b), true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 3 (rule_244) }
% 17.47/2.65 fresh79(true, true, b)
% 17.47/2.65 = { by axiom 4 (rule_277) }
% 17.47/2.65 true
% 17.47/2.65 % SZS output end Proof
% 17.47/2.65
% 17.47/2.65 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------