TSTP Solution File: SYO652-1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : SYO652-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n022.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 19:50:11 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.59s 2.85s
% Output : Refutation 2.59s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYO652-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Jul 9 08:49:56 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 1.57/1.77 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 1.57/1.77 The process was started by sandbox2 on n022.cluster.edu,
% 1.57/1.77 Sat Jul 9 08:49:56 2022
% 1.57/1.77 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 19500.
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 1.57/1.77 set(auto).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(auto1).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(process_input).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 1.57/1.77 clear(print_given).
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 list(usable).
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=0, symmetry=0, max_lits=19.
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 This is a non-Horn set without equality. The strategy
% 1.57/1.77 will be ordered hyper_res, ur_res, unit deletion, and
% 1.57/1.77 factoring, with satellites in sos and nuclei in usable.
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(factor).
% 1.57/1.77 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 ------------> process usable:
% 1.57/1.77 29 back subsumes 28.
% 1.57/1.77 29 back subsumes 23.
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 ------------> process sos:
% 1.57/1.77
% 1.57/1.77 ======= end of input processing =======
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 2.52/2.75 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 2.52/2.75 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 2.52/2.75 number of clauses in intial UL: 34
% 2.52/2.75 number of clauses initially in problem: 35
% 2.52/2.75 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 97
% 2.52/2.75 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 100
% 2.52/2.75 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 2.52/2.75 absolute distinct symbol count: 8
% 2.52/2.75 distinct predicate count: 3
% 2.52/2.75 distinct function count: 3
% 2.52/2.75 distinct constant count: 2
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.52/2.75
% 2.52/2.75 =========== start of search ===========
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 -------- PROOF --------
% 2.59/2.85 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.59/2.85 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Model 2 [ 1 0 326 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 2.47 sec ----> 48 [hyper,47,30,42,47,44,42,44,41,41,46,46] {-} $F.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Length of proof is 11. Level of proof is 5.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 2.59/2.85 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.59/2.85 % SZS output start Refutation
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 3 [] {+} -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(D)))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(D))| -'E'('0',f(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -iLEQ(suc(D),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(suc(C)))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B))|'E'(f(D),f(suc(D)))|'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))|'E'(f(B),f(suc(B)))|'E'(f(C),f(suc(C))).
% 2.59/2.85 4 [] {+} -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(A))))| -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))| -'E'('0',f(A))|iLEQ(suc(A),suc(A)).
% 2.59/2.85 6 [] {+} -'LE'(f(suc(A)),s('0'))|'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 10 [] {+} -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(A))))| -'E'('0',f(suc(D)))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(D))))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(D))| -'E'('0',f(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -'E'(f(B),f(suc(B)))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(B))))| -'E'(f(D),f(suc(D)))| -'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(D),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(suc(C)))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(C))))| -'E'(f(C),f(suc(C)))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B)).
% 2.59/2.85 11 [] {+} -'LE'(f(A),s('0'))|'E'('0',f(A))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 13 [] {+} -'LE'(f(suc(suc(A))),s('0'))|'E'('0',f(suc(suc(A))))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 15 [] {+} -'LE'(f(z),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 21 [] {+} -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))|iLEQ(suc(A),suc(A)).
% 2.59/2.85 27 [factor,3.3.9,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(C)))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -iLEQ(suc(C),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B))|'E'(f(C),f(suc(C)))|'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))|'E'(f(B),f(suc(B))).
% 2.59/2.85 30 [factor,10.1.15,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(A))))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -'E'('0',f(suc(suc(B))))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -'E'(f(B),f(suc(B)))| -'E'(f(A),f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B)).
% 2.59/2.85 37 [] {-} 'LE'(f(A),s('0')).
% 2.59/2.85 38 [hyper,37,13] {-} 'E'('0',f(suc(suc(A))))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 39 [hyper,37,11] {+} 'E'('0',f(A))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 40 [hyper,37,6] {-} 'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 2.59/2.85 41 [hyper,39,15] {+} 'E'('0',f(z)).
% 2.59/2.85 42 [hyper,40,15] {-} 'E'('0',f(suc(z))).
% 2.59/2.85 43 [hyper,41,21,42] {+} 'E'(f(z),f(suc(z)))|iLEQ(suc(z),suc(z)).
% 2.59/2.85 44 [hyper,38,15] {-} 'E'('0',f(suc(suc(z)))).
% 2.59/2.85 46 [hyper,43,27,42,43,42,41,41,42,43,41,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} 'E'(f(z),f(suc(z))).
% 2.59/2.85 47 [hyper,46,4,44,42,41] {+} iLEQ(suc(z),suc(z)).
% 2.59/2.85 48 [hyper,47,30,42,47,44,42,44,41,41,46,46] {-} $F.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 % SZS output end Refutation
% 2.59/2.85 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 ============ end of search ============
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 true clauses given 4 (40.0%)
% 2.59/2.85 false clauses given 6
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 FALSE TRUE
% 2.59/2.85 15 0 1
% 2.59/2.85 tot: 0 1 (100.0% true)
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Model 2 [ 1 0 326 ] (0.00 seconds, 250000 Inserts)
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 2.59/2.85
% 2.59/2.85 Process 19500 finished Sat Jul 9 08:49:58 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------