TSTP Solution File: SYN267-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SYN267-1 : 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 : n031.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 03:33:50 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 15.93s 2.47s
% Output : Proof 15.93s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.13 % Problem : SYN267-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.12/0.14 % Command : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sat Aug 26 17:37:08 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 15.93/2.47 Command-line arguments: --kbo-weight0 --lhs-weight 5 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10 --goal-heuristic
% 15.93/2.47
% 15.93/2.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 15.93/2.47
% 15.93/2.48 % SZS output start Proof
% 15.93/2.48 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 15.93/2.48 fof(axiom_19, axiom, ![X, Y]: m0(X, d, Y)).
% 15.93/2.48 fof(prove_this, negated_conjecture, ![X2, Y2]: ~p4(X2, Y2, c)).
% 15.93/2.48 fof(rule_122, axiom, ![G, H]: (q1(G, G, G) | ~m0(G, H, G))).
% 15.93/2.48 fof(rule_154, axiom, ![A2]: (p2(A2, A2, A2) | ~q1(A2, A2, A2))).
% 15.93/2.48 fof(rule_205, axiom, ![E, F]: (k3(E, E, E) | ~p2(F, E, E))).
% 15.93/2.48 fof(rule_287, axiom, ![C, B]: (p4(B, C, B) | ~k3(B, B, C))).
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 15.93/2.48 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 15.93/2.48 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 15.93/2.48 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 15.93/2.48 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 15.93/2.48 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 15.93/2.48 variables of u and v.
% 15.93/2.48 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 15.93/2.48 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 1 (axiom_19): m0(X, d, Y) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 2 (rule_122): fresh279(X, X, Y) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 3 (rule_154): fresh241(X, X, Y) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 4 (rule_205): fresh170(X, X, Y) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 5 (rule_287): fresh62(X, X, Y, Z) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 6 (rule_122): fresh279(m0(X, Y, X), true2, X) = q1(X, X, X).
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 7 (rule_154): fresh241(q1(X, X, X), true2, X) = p2(X, X, X).
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 8 (rule_205): fresh170(p2(X, Y, Y), true2, Y) = k3(Y, Y, Y).
% 15.93/2.48 Axiom 9 (rule_287): fresh62(k3(X, X, Y), true2, X, Y) = p4(X, Y, X).
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 Goal 1 (prove_this): p4(X, Y, c) = true2.
% 15.93/2.48 The goal is true when:
% 15.93/2.48 X = c
% 15.93/2.48 Y = c
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 Proof:
% 15.93/2.48 p4(c, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 9 (rule_287) R->L }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(k3(c, c, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 8 (rule_205) R->L }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(p2(c, c, c), true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 7 (rule_154) R->L }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(fresh241(q1(c, c, c), true2, c), true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 6 (rule_122) R->L }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(fresh241(fresh279(m0(c, d, c), true2, c), true2, c), true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 1 (axiom_19) }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(fresh241(fresh279(true2, true2, c), true2, c), true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 2 (rule_122) }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(fresh241(true2, true2, c), true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 3 (rule_154) }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(fresh170(true2, true2, c), true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 4 (rule_205) }
% 15.93/2.48 fresh62(true2, true2, c, c)
% 15.93/2.48 = { by axiom 5 (rule_287) }
% 15.93/2.48 true2
% 15.93/2.48 % SZS output end Proof
% 15.93/2.48
% 15.93/2.48 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------