TSTP Solution File: SYN621-1 by SPASS---3.9

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : SPASS---3.9
% Problem  : SYN621-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : run_spass %d %s

% Computer : n014.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 12:23:16 EDT 2022

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.48s
% Output   : Refutation 0.19s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12  % Problem  : SYN621-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.03/0.12  % Command  : run_spass %d %s
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n014.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  : 600
% 0.13/0.34  % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 03:10:34 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.48  
% 0.19/0.48  SPASS V 3.9 
% 0.19/0.48  SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.19/0.48  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.48  Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 
% 0.19/0.48  SPASS derived 317 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 0 splits and kept 223 clauses.
% 0.19/0.48  SPASS allocated 63472 KBytes.
% 0.19/0.48  SPASS spent	0:00:00.13 on the problem.
% 0.19/0.48  		0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.19/0.48  		0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.19/0.48  		0:00:00.01 for inferences.
% 0.19/0.48  		0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.19/0.48  		0:00:00.06 for the reduction.
% 0.19/0.48  
% 0.19/0.48  
% 0.19/0.48  Here is a proof with depth 1, length 11 :
% 0.19/0.48  % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.19/0.48  7[0:Inp] || p2(c23,f3(c24))* -> .
% 0.19/0.48  18[0:Inp] || p21(u,v)* p21(v,w)* -> p21(u,w)*.
% 0.19/0.48  28[0:Inp] ||  -> p2(u,f3(c24)) p22(f20(v,u,w,x),f14(f11(v,f12(u,w))))*.
% 0.19/0.48  31[0:Inp] || p22(u,f14(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26))))*+ -> p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f5(f6(c27,u)))*.
% 0.19/0.48  32[0:Inp] || p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f15(f19(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c27),f16(f3(f17(f18(c24))))))*r -> .
% 0.19/0.48  34[0:Inp] ||  -> p2(u,f3(c24)) p21(f5(f6(v,f20(w,u,x,v))),f15(f19(f11(w,f12(u,x)),v),f16(f3(f17(f18(c24))))))*.
% 0.19/0.48  294[0:Res:28.1,31.0] ||  -> p2(c23,f3(c24)) p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f5(f6(c27,f20(c25,c23,c26,u))))*.
% 0.19/0.48  295[0:MRR:294.0,7.0] ||  -> p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f5(f6(c27,f20(c25,c23,c26,u))))*.
% 0.19/0.48  352[0:NCh:18.2,18.1,34.1,32.0] || p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f5(f6(c27,f20(c25,c23,c26,c27))))*l -> p2(c23,f3(c24)).
% 0.19/0.48  353[0:MRR:352.1,7.0] || p21(f5(f6(c27,f9(f11(c25,f12(c23,c26)),c28,c27))),f5(f6(c27,f20(c25,c23,c26,c27))))*l -> .
% 0.19/0.48  354[0:MRR:353.0,295.0] ||  -> .
% 0.19/0.48  % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.19/0.48  Formulae used in the proof : not_p2_7 p21_18 p2_28 p21_31 not_p21_32 p2_34
% 0.19/0.48  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------