TSTP Solution File: SYO666-1 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : SYO666-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n021.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 19:50:15 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.50s 0.69s
% Output : Refutation 0.50s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : SYO666-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v7.3.0.
% 0.06/0.13 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n021.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 12:49:36 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.38/0.62 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.38/0.62 The process was started by sandbox on n021.cluster.edu,
% 0.38/0.62 Sat Jul 9 12:49:36 2022
% 0.38/0.62 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 16163.
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.38/0.62 set(auto).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.38/0.62 clear(print_given).
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 list(usable).
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=0, symmetry=0, max_lits=17.
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 This is a non-Horn set without equality. The strategy
% 0.38/0.62 will be ordered hyper_res, ur_res, unit deletion, and
% 0.38/0.62 factoring, with satellites in sos and nuclei in usable.
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.38/0.62 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 ------------> process usable:
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 ------------> process sos:
% 0.38/0.62
% 0.38/0.62 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.46/0.64 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.46/0.64 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.46/0.64 number of clauses in intial UL: 39
% 0.46/0.64 number of clauses initially in problem: 40
% 0.46/0.64 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 97
% 0.46/0.64 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 100
% 0.46/0.64 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 100
% 0.46/0.64 absolute distinct symbol count: 8
% 0.46/0.64 distinct predicate count: 3
% 0.46/0.64 distinct function count: 3
% 0.46/0.64 distinct constant count: 2
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64
% 0.46/0.64 =========== start of search ===========
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 -------- PROOF --------
% 0.50/0.69 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.50/0.69 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 0.32 sec ----> 62 [hyper,61,13,61,60,60,61,55,60,61,55,55,60,55] {-} $F.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 Length of proof is 19. Level of proof is 8.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 0.50/0.69 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.50/0.69 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 1 [] {+} -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B))| -'E'('0',f(suc(C)))| -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(D))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -'E'('0',f(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(E)))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -iLEQ(suc(F),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -iLEQ(suc(E),suc(F))| -'E'('0',f(suc(D)))| -'E'('0',f(E))| -iLEQ(suc(C),suc(E))| -'E'('0',f(suc(F)))| -'E'('0',f(D))| -'E'('0',f(F)).
% 0.50/0.69 2 [] {+} -'E'('0',f(A))| -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|iLEQ(suc(A),suc(A)).
% 0.50/0.69 3 [] {+} -'LE'(f(z),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 4 [] {+} -'LE'(f(suc(A)),s('0'))|'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 5 [] {+} -'LE'(f(A),s('0'))|'E'('0',f(A))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 6 [] {+} -'E'(s('0'),f(A))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))|iLEQ(suc(A),suc(A)).
% 0.50/0.69 7 [] {+} -'LE'(f(suc(A)),s(s('0')))|'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),s('0')).
% 0.50/0.69 8 [] {+} -'LE'(f(A),s(s('0')))|'E'(s('0'),f(A))|'LE'(f(A),s('0')).
% 0.50/0.69 9 [] {+} -'E'(s('0'),f(A))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(C))| -'E'(s('0'),f(D))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(D)))| -iLEQ(suc(E),suc(B))| -'E'(s('0'),f(B))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(B)))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(E))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(C),suc(F))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(E)))| -'E'(s('0'),f(F))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(C)))| -iLEQ(suc(D),suc(A))| -'E'(s('0'),f(E))| -'E'(s('0'),f(C))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(F))).
% 0.50/0.69 13 [factor,1.2.5,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(B))| -'E'('0',f(suc(B)))| -'E'('0',f(suc(A)))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(C))| -'E'('0',f(B))| -'E'('0',f(suc(C)))| -iLEQ(suc(D),suc(A))| -'E'('0',f(A))| -iLEQ(suc(C),suc(D))| -'E'('0',f(C))| -'E'('0',f(suc(D)))| -'E'('0',f(D)).
% 0.50/0.69 16 [factor,9.1.16,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} -'E'(s('0'),f(A))| -iLEQ(suc(B),suc(A))| -'E'(s('0'),f(B))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(B)))| -iLEQ(suc(C),suc(B))| -iLEQ(suc(A),suc(C))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))| -'E'(s('0'),f(suc(C)))| -'E'(s('0'),f(C)).
% 0.50/0.69 40 [] {-} 'LE'(f(A),s(s('0'))).
% 0.50/0.69 41 [hyper,40,8] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(A))|'LE'(f(A),s('0')).
% 0.50/0.69 42 [hyper,40,7] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),s('0')).
% 0.50/0.69 43 [hyper,41,5] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(A))|'E'('0',f(A))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 44 [hyper,41,4] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))|'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 45 [hyper,42,5] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(A)))|'E'('0',f(A))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 46 [hyper,42,4] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(suc(A))))|'E'('0',f(suc(A)))|'LE'(f(A),'0').
% 0.50/0.69 47 [hyper,43,3] {+} 'E'(s('0'),f(z))|'E'('0',f(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 48 [hyper,44,3] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(z)))|'E'('0',f(suc(z))).
% 0.50/0.69 51 [hyper,45,3] {+} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(z)))|'E'('0',f(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 52 [hyper,51,6,47,factor_simp] {+} 'E'('0',f(z))|iLEQ(suc(z),suc(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 53 [hyper,51,2,48,factor_simp] {+} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(z)))|iLEQ(suc(z),suc(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 54 [hyper,46,3] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(suc(z))))|'E'('0',f(suc(z))).
% 0.50/0.69 55 [hyper,52,16,47,52,47,51,52,51,51,47,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {+} 'E'('0',f(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 56 [hyper,54,6,48,factor_simp] {+} 'E'('0',f(suc(z)))|iLEQ(suc(suc(z)),suc(suc(z))).
% 0.50/0.69 59 [hyper,53,13,53,48,48,53,55,48,53,55,55,48,55,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {-} 'E'(s('0'),f(suc(z))).
% 0.50/0.69 60 [hyper,56,16,59,56,59,54,56,54,54,59,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp,factor_simp] {-} 'E'('0',f(suc(z))).
% 0.50/0.69 61 [hyper,60,2,55] {+} iLEQ(suc(z),suc(z)).
% 0.50/0.69 62 [hyper,61,13,61,60,60,61,55,60,61,55,55,60,55] {-} $F.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.50/0.69 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 ============ end of search ============
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 true clauses given 7 (38.9%)
% 0.50/0.69 false clauses given 11
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 FALSE TRUE
% 0.50/0.69 tot: 0 0 (-nan% true)
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 0.50/0.69
% 0.50/0.69 Process 16163 finished Sat Jul 9 12:49:36 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------