%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : SPASS---3.9 % Problem : CAT007-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : run_spass %d %s % Computer : n024.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 : Fri Jul 15 00:07:29 EDT 2022 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.41s % Output : Refutation 0.14s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.12 % Problem : CAT007-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0. % 0.11/0.13 % Command : run_spass %d %s % 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Sun May 29 16:08:21 EDT 2022 % 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.14/0.41 % 0.14/0.41 SPASS V 3.9 % 0.14/0.41 SPASS beiseite: Proof found. % 0.14/0.41 % SZS status Theorem % 0.14/0.41 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.14/0.41 SPASS derived 1 clauses, backtracked 0 clauses, performed 0 splits and kept 12 clauses. % 0.14/0.41 SPASS allocated 63087 KBytes. % 0.14/0.41 SPASS spent 0:00:00.06 on the problem. % 0.14/0.41 0:00:00.04 for the input. % 0.14/0.41 0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation. % 0.14/0.41 0:00:00.00 for inferences. % 0.14/0.41 0:00:00.00 for the backtracking. % 0.14/0.41 0:00:00.00 for the reduction. % 0.14/0.41 % 0.14/0.41 % 0.14/0.41 Here is a proof with depth 1, length 6 : % 0.14/0.41 % SZS output start Refutation % 0.14/0.41 5[0:Inp] || there_exists(domain__dfg(u)) equalish(domain__dfg(u),codomain(v)) -> there_exists(compose(u,v))*. % 0.14/0.41 9[0:Inp] || -> there_exists(domain__dfg(c2))*. % 0.14/0.41 11[0:Inp] || -> equalish(domain__dfg(c2),codomain(c1))*l. % 0.14/0.41 12[0:Inp] || there_exists(compose(c2,c1))* -> . % 0.14/0.41 13[0:Res:5.2,12.0] || there_exists(domain__dfg(c2))* equalish(domain__dfg(c2),codomain(c1)) -> . % 0.14/0.41 15[0:MRR:13.0,13.1,9.0,11.0] || -> . % 0.14/0.41 % SZS output end Refutation % 0.14/0.41 Formulae used in the proof : domain_codomain_composition2 domain_of_c2_exists domain_of_c2_equals_codomain_of_c1 prove_c1_c2_is_defined % 0.14/0.41 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------