↑ Up

Twee---2.7.UNS-Prf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.7
% Problem  : CAT009-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p

% Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Sep 29 09:36:23 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.23s 0.29s
% Output   : Proof 0.23s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : CAT009-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.07/0.18  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.18  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.18  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.18  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.18  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.18  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.18  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.07/0.18  % DateTime : Mon Sep 28 21:12:54 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.18  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.07/0.18  Running run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.23/0.29  Command-line arguments: --lhs-weight 1 --flip-ordering --normalise-queue-percent 10 --cp-renormalise-threshold 10 --complete-subsets --ground-joining-incomplete-limit 15 --flatten-every 2
% 0.23/0.29  
% 0.23/0.29  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.23/0.29  
% 0.23/0.29  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 1 (ab_exists): there_exists(compose(a, b)) = true.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 2 (compose_domain): compose(X, domain(X)) = X.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose): compose(X, compose(Y, Z)) = compose(compose(X, Y), Z).
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 4 (ifeq_axiom): ifeq(X, X, Y, Z) = Y.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 5 (ifeq_axiom): ifeq2(X, X, Y, Z) = Y.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 6 (codomain_has_elements): ifeq(there_exists(codomain(X)), true, there_exists(X), true) = true.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 7 (composition_implies_domain): ifeq(there_exists(compose(X, Y)), true, there_exists(domain(X)), true) = true.
% 0.23/0.29  Axiom 8 (domain_codomain_composition1): ifeq2(there_exists(compose(X, Y)), true, domain(X), codomain(Y)) = codomain(Y).
% 0.23/0.29  
% 0.23/0.29  Lemma 9: compose(X, domain(domain(X))) = X.
% 0.23/0.29  Proof:
% 0.23/0.29    compose(X, domain(domain(X)))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 2 (compose_domain) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    compose(compose(X, domain(X)), domain(domain(X)))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    compose(X, compose(domain(X), domain(domain(X))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 2 (compose_domain) }
% 0.23/0.29    compose(X, domain(X))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 2 (compose_domain) }
% 0.23/0.29    X
% 0.23/0.29  
% 0.23/0.29  Goal 1 (prove_domain_of_ab_equals_domain_of_b): domain(compose(a, b)) = domain(b).
% 0.23/0.29  Proof:
% 0.23/0.29    domain(compose(a, b))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 5 (ifeq_axiom) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(true, true, domain(compose(a, b)), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 1 (ab_exists) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(there_exists(compose(a, b)), true, domain(compose(a, b)), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by lemma 9 R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(there_exists(compose(a, compose(b, domain(domain(b))))), true, domain(compose(a, b)), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose) }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(there_exists(compose(compose(a, b), domain(domain(b)))), true, domain(compose(a, b)), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 8 (domain_codomain_composition1) }
% 0.23/0.29    codomain(domain(domain(b)))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 8 (domain_codomain_composition1) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(there_exists(compose(b, domain(domain(b)))), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by lemma 9 }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(there_exists(b), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 4 (ifeq_axiom) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(true, true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 7 (composition_implies_domain) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(ifeq(there_exists(compose(a, b)), true, there_exists(domain(a)), true), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 1 (ab_exists) }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(ifeq(true, true, there_exists(domain(a)), true), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 4 (ifeq_axiom) }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(there_exists(domain(a)), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 5 (ifeq_axiom) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(there_exists(ifeq2(true, true, domain(a), codomain(b))), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 1 (ab_exists) R->L }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(there_exists(ifeq2(there_exists(compose(a, b)), true, domain(a), codomain(b))), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 8 (domain_codomain_composition1) }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(ifeq(there_exists(codomain(b)), true, there_exists(b), true), true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 6 (codomain_has_elements) }
% 0.23/0.29    ifeq2(true, true, domain(b), codomain(domain(domain(b))))
% 0.23/0.29  = { by axiom 5 (ifeq_axiom) }
% 0.23/0.29    domain(b)
% 0.23/0.29  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.23/0.29  
% 0.23/0.29  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------