TSTP Solution File: SYN711-1 by Twee---2.4.2
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem : SYN711-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.5.0.
% 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 03:35:48 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.59s
% Output : Proof 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SYN711-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % 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 : n031.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 19:44:53 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.59 Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 9 --flip-ordering --complete-subsets --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.19/0.59 Take the following subset of the input axioms:
% 0.19/0.59 fof(not_p42_78, negated_conjecture, ~p42(f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))))).
% 0.19/0.59 fof(p41_80, negated_conjecture, p41(f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))))).
% 0.19/0.59 fof(p42_25, negated_conjecture, p42(f16(c62), f16(f7(c46)))).
% 0.19/0.59 fof(p42_26, negated_conjecture, ![X73, X74]: (p42(X73, X74) | ~p41(X73, X74))).
% 0.19/0.59 fof(p42_47, negated_conjecture, ![X75, X76, X77]: (p42(X75, X76) | (~p42(X75, X77) | ~p42(X77, X76)))).
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 Now clausify the problem and encode Horn clauses using encoding 3 of
% 0.19/0.59 http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nicsma/papers/horn.pdf.
% 0.19/0.59 We repeatedly replace C & s=t => u=v by the two clauses:
% 0.19/0.59 fresh(y, y, x1...xn) = u
% 0.19/0.59 C => fresh(s, t, x1...xn) = v
% 0.19/0.59 where fresh is a fresh function symbol and x1..xn are the free
% 0.19/0.59 variables of u and v.
% 0.19/0.59 A predicate p(X) is encoded as p(X)=true (this is sound, because the
% 0.19/0.59 input problem has no model of domain size 1).
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 The encoding turns the above axioms into the following unit equations and goals:
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 1 (p42_26): fresh35(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 2 (p42_47): fresh33(X, X, Y, Z) = true.
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 3 (p42_25): p42(f16(c62), f16(f7(c46))) = true.
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 4 (p42_47): fresh34(X, X, Y, Z, W) = p42(Y, Z).
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 5 (p42_26): fresh35(p41(X, Y), true, X, Y) = p42(X, Y).
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 6 (p42_47): fresh34(p42(X, Y), true, Z, Y, X) = fresh33(p42(Z, X), true, Z, Y).
% 0.19/0.59 Axiom 7 (p41_80): p41(f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))) = true.
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 Goal 1 (not_p42_78): p42(f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))) = true.
% 0.19/0.59 Proof:
% 0.19/0.59 p42(f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 4 (p42_47) R->L }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh34(true, true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))), f16(f7(c46)))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 1 (p42_26) R->L }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh34(fresh35(true, true, f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))), true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))), f16(f7(c46)))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 7 (p41_80) R->L }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh34(fresh35(p41(f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))), true, f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))), true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))), f16(f7(c46)))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 5 (p42_26) }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh34(p42(f16(f7(c46)), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49))))))))))), true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))), f16(f7(c46)))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 6 (p42_47) }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh33(p42(f16(c62), f16(f7(c46))), true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 3 (p42_25) }
% 0.19/0.59 fresh33(true, true, f16(c62), f13(f14(f10(f11(f15(f12(c49)))), f11(f15(f15(f15(f15(f12(f15(f12(c49)))))))))))
% 0.19/0.59 = { by axiom 2 (p42_47) }
% 0.19/0.59 true
% 0.19/0.59 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.19/0.59
% 0.19/0.59 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------