↑ Up

Moca---0.1.UNS-Prf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Moca---0.1
% Problem  : GRP545-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : moca.sh %s

% Computer : n006.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 : Sat Jul 16 10:56:10 EDT 2022

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.89s 1.04s
% Output   : Proof 0.89s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : GRP545-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.07/0.12  % Command  : moca.sh %s
% 0.13/0.33  % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.13/0.33  % DateTime : Mon Jun 13 23:31:11 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.89/1.04  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.89/1.04  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.89/1.04  The input problem is unsatisfiable because
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  [1] the following set of Horn clauses is unsatisfiable:
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(divide(identity, divide(A, B)), divide(divide(B, C), A)) = C
% 0.89/1.04  	multiply(A, B) = divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(A) = divide(identity, A)
% 0.89/1.04  	identity = divide(A, A)
% 0.89/1.04  	multiply(inverse(a1), a1) = multiply(inverse(b1), b1) ==> \bottom
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  This holds because
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  [2] the following E entails the following G (Claessen-Smallbone's transformation (2018)):
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  E:
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(divide(identity, divide(A, B)), divide(divide(B, C), A)) = C
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(multiply(inverse(a1), a1)) = true__
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(multiply(inverse(b1), b1)) = false__
% 0.89/1.04  	identity = divide(A, A)
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(A) = divide(identity, A)
% 0.89/1.04  	multiply(A, B) = divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.89/1.04  G:
% 0.89/1.04  	true__ = false__
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  This holds because
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  [3] E entails the following ordered TRS and the lhs and rhs of G join by the TRS:
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(A, A) -> identity
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(Y0, identity) -> Y0
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(divide(X0, X1), X0) -> inverse(X1)
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(divide(identity, divide(A, B)), divide(divide(B, C), A)) -> C
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(identity, A) -> inverse(A)
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(X0), identity) -> inverse(X0)
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(X0, identity)), identity) -> inverse(X0)
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(Y0, Y1)), divide(divide(Y1, Y2), Y0)) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(Y0, Y2)), inverse(Y0)) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(Y0, identity)), divide(inverse(Y2), Y0)) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(divide(Y1, Y2), Y1)), identity) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(inverse(X0), Y1)), X0) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(divide(inverse(Y1), identity)), identity) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(identity), divide(divide(Y1, Y2), Y1)) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(inverse(Y1)), divide(divide(Y1, Y2), identity)) -> Y2
% 0.89/1.04  	divide(inverse(inverse(Y1)), identity) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(identity) -> false__
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(identity) -> true__
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(multiply(inverse(a1), a1)) -> true__
% 0.89/1.04  	f1(multiply(inverse(b1), b1)) -> false__
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(divide(X0, identity)) -> inverse(X0)
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(divide(divide(Y0, Y1), Y0)) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(divide(inverse(Y1), identity)) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(identity) -> identity
% 0.89/1.04  	inverse(inverse(Y1)) -> Y1
% 0.89/1.04  	multiply(A, B) -> divide(A, divide(identity, B))
% 0.89/1.04  	true__ -> false__
% 0.89/1.04  with the LPO induced by
% 0.89/1.04  	a1 > b1 > f1 > multiply > divide > identity > inverse > true__ > false__
% 0.89/1.04  
% 0.89/1.04  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.89/1.04  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------