↑ Up

Prover9---1109a.THM-Ref.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Prover9---1109a
% Problem  : MGT083+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s

% Computer : n019.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  : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Apr 29 02:10:28 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.79s 1.10s
% Output   : Refutation 0.79s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : MGT083+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13  % Command  : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% 0.15/0.33  % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.33  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.33  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.33  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.33  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.33  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.33  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.33  % DateTime : Tue Apr 28 18:52:28 EDT 2026
% 0.15/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.79/1.09  ============================== Prover9 ===============================
% 0.79/1.09  Prover9 (32) version 2009-11A, November 2009.
% 0.79/1.09  Process 9659 was started by sandbox2 on n019.cluster.edu,
% 0.79/1.09  Tue Apr 28 18:52:29 2026
% 0.79/1.09  The command was "/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/prover9 -t 300 -f /tmp/Prover9_9273_n019.cluster.edu".
% 0.79/1.09  ============================== end of head ===========================
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  ============================== INPUT =================================
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  % Reading from file /tmp/Prover9_9273_n019.cluster.edu
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.79/1.09  set(auto2).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> set(auto).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto) -> set(auto_inference).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto) -> set(auto_setup).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto_setup) -> set(predicate_elim).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto_setup) -> assign(eq_defs, unfold).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto) -> set(auto_limits).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto_limits) -> assign(max_weight, "100.000").
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto_limits) -> assign(sos_limit, 20000).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto) -> set(auto_denials).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto) -> set(auto_process).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(new_constants, 1).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(fold_denial_max, 3).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(max_weight, "200.000").
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(max_hours, 1).
% 0.79/1.09      % assign(max_hours, 1) -> assign(max_seconds, 3600).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(max_seconds, 0).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(max_minutes, 5).
% 0.79/1.09      % assign(max_minutes, 5) -> assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> set(sort_initial_sos).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(sos_limit, -1).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(lrs_ticks, 3000).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(max_megs, 400).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> assign(stats, some).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> clear(echo_input).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> set(quiet).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> clear(print_initial_clauses).
% 0.79/1.09      % set(auto2) -> clear(print_given).
% 0.79/1.09  assign(lrs_ticks,-1).
% 0.79/1.09  assign(sos_limit,10000).
% 0.79/1.09  assign(order,kbo).
% 0.79/1.09  set(lex_order_vars).
% 0.79/1.09  clear(print_given).
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  % formulas(sos).  % not echoed (32 formulas)
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  ============================== end of input ==========================
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  % From the command line: assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.79/1.09  
% 0.79/1.09  ============================== PROCESS NON-CLAUSAL FORMULAS ==========
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  % Formulas that are not ordinary clauses:
% 0.79/1.10  1 (all X -less(X,X)) # label(irreflexive) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  2 (all X all Y all Z (less(X,Y) & less(Y,Z) -> less(X,Z))) # label(transitive) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  3 (all X all Y (less(X,Y) | X = Y | less(Y,X))) # label(trichotomy) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  4 (all X all Y (leq(X,Y) <-> less(X,Y) | X = Y)) # label(leq_def) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  5 (all X all Y (leq(X,Y) & leq(Y,X) -> X = Y)) # label(leq_antisym) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  6 (all X all Y (less(X,Y) -> leq(X,Y))) # label(less_implies_leq) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  7 (all X all Y all Z (leq(X,Y) & less(Y,Z) -> less(X,Z))) # label(leq_less_trans) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  8 (all X all Y all Z (less(X,Y) & leq(Y,Z) -> less(X,Z))) # label(less_leq_trans) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  9 (all X all Y all Z (leq(X,Y) & leq(Y,Z) -> leq(X,Z))) # label(leq_trans) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  10 (all X all A all B (in_closed(X,A,B) <-> leq(A,X) & leq(X,B))) # label(in_closed) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  11 (all X all A all B (in_lopen(X,A,B) <-> less(A,X) & leq(X,B))) # label(in_lopen) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  12 (all X all A all B (in_ropen(X,A,B) <-> leq(A,X) & less(X,B))) # label(in_ropen) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  13 (all X all A all B (in_open(X,A,B) <-> less(A,X) & less(X,B))) # label(in_open) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  14 (all I1lo all I1hi all I2lo all I2hi (axis_conflict(I1lo,I1hi,I2lo,I2hi) <-> -(exists X (in_closed(X,I1lo,I1hi) & in_closed(X,I2lo,I2hi))))) # label(axis_conflict_def) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  15 (all I1lo all I1hi all I2lo all I2hi (axis_compatible(I1lo,I1hi,I2lo,I2hi) <-> (exists X (in_closed(X,I1lo,I1hi) & in_closed(X,I2lo,I2hi))))) # label(axis_compatible_def) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  16 (all I1lo all I1hi all I2lo all I2hi (axis_subsumes(I1lo,I1hi,I2lo,I2hi) <-> (all X (in_closed(X,I1lo,I1hi) -> in_closed(X,I2lo,I2hi))))) # label(axis_subsumes_def) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  17 (all V (is_verdict(V) -> V = conflict | V = compatible | V = unknown)) # label(verdict_enum) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  18 (all V1 all V2 (is_verdict(V1) & is_verdict(V2) & (V1 = conflict | V2 = conflict) -> box_verdict(V1,V2) = conflict)) # label(box_conflict) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  19 (all V1 all V2 (is_verdict(V1) & is_verdict(V2) & V1 = compatible & V2 = compatible -> box_verdict(V1,V2) = compatible)) # label(box_compatible) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  20 (all V1 all V2 (is_verdict(V1) & is_verdict(V2) & (V1 = unknown | V2 = unknown) & V1 != conflict & V2 != conflict -> box_verdict(V1,V2) = unknown)) # label(box_unknown) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  21 (all V1 all V2 (is_verdict(V1) & is_verdict(V2) -> box_verdict(V1,V2) = conflict | box_verdict(V1,V2) = compatible | box_verdict(V1,V2) = unknown)) # label(box_verdict_total) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  22 --(exists X (in_open(X,v0,v600) & less(v600,X))) # label(odrl423) # label(negated_conjecture) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of process non-clausal formulas ===
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== PROCESS INITIAL CLAUSES ===============
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== PREDICATE ELIMINATION =================
% 0.79/1.10  23 -in_open(A,B,C) | less(B,A) # label(in_open) # label(axiom).  [clausify(13)].
% 0.79/1.10  24 in_open(c1,v0,v600) # label(odrl423) # label(negated_conjecture).  [clausify(22)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: less(v0,c1).  [resolve(23,a,24,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  25 -in_open(A,B,C) | less(A,C) # label(in_open) # label(axiom).  [clausify(13)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: less(c1,v600).  [resolve(25,a,24,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  26 in_open(A,B,C) | -less(B,A) | -less(A,C) # label(in_open) # label(axiom).  [clausify(13)].
% 0.79/1.10  27 -axis_conflict(A,B,C,D) | -in_closed(E,A,B) | -in_closed(E,C,D) # label(axis_conflict_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(14)].
% 0.79/1.10  28 axis_conflict(A,B,C,D) | in_closed(f1(A,B,C,D),A,B) # label(axis_conflict_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(14)].
% 0.79/1.10  29 axis_conflict(A,B,C,D) | in_closed(f1(A,B,C,D),C,D) # label(axis_conflict_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(14)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(A,B,C) | -in_closed(A,D,E) | in_closed(f1(B,C,D,E),B,C).  [resolve(27,a,28,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(A,B,C) | -in_closed(A,D,E) | in_closed(f1(B,C,D,E),D,E).  [resolve(27,a,29,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  30 -axis_subsumes(A,B,C,D) | -in_closed(E,A,B) | in_closed(E,C,D) # label(axis_subsumes_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(16)].
% 0.79/1.10  31 axis_subsumes(A,B,C,D) | in_closed(f3(A,B,C,D),A,B) # label(axis_subsumes_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(16)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(A,B,C) | in_closed(A,D,E) | in_closed(f3(B,C,D,E),B,C).  [resolve(30,a,31,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  32 axis_subsumes(A,B,C,D) | -in_closed(f3(A,B,C,D),C,D) # label(axis_subsumes_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(16)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(f3(A,B,C,D),C,D) | -in_closed(E,A,B) | in_closed(E,C,D).  [resolve(32,a,30,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  33 in_lopen(A,B,C) | -less(B,A) | -leq(A,C) # label(in_lopen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(11)].
% 0.79/1.10  34 -in_lopen(A,B,C) | less(B,A) # label(in_lopen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(11)].
% 0.79/1.10  35 -in_lopen(A,B,C) | leq(A,C) # label(in_lopen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(11)].
% 0.79/1.10  36 in_ropen(A,B,C) | -leq(B,A) | -less(A,C) # label(in_ropen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(12)].
% 0.79/1.10  37 -in_ropen(A,B,C) | leq(B,A) # label(in_ropen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(12)].
% 0.79/1.10  38 -in_ropen(A,B,C) | less(A,C) # label(in_ropen) # label(axiom).  [clausify(12)].
% 0.79/1.10  39 axis_compatible(A,B,C,D) | -in_closed(E,A,B) | -in_closed(E,C,D) # label(axis_compatible_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(15)].
% 0.79/1.10  40 -axis_compatible(A,B,C,D) | in_closed(f2(A,B,C,D),A,B) # label(axis_compatible_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(15)].
% 0.79/1.10  41 -axis_compatible(A,B,C,D) | in_closed(f2(A,B,C,D),C,D) # label(axis_compatible_def) # label(axiom).  [clausify(15)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(A,B,C) | -in_closed(A,D,E) | in_closed(f2(B,C,D,E),B,C).  [resolve(39,a,40,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  Derived: -in_closed(A,B,C) | -in_closed(A,D,E) | in_closed(f2(B,C,D,E),D,E).  [resolve(39,a,41,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end predicate elimination =============
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  Auto_denials:  (non-Horn, no changes).
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  Term ordering decisions:
% 0.79/1.10  Function symbol KB weights:  conflict=1. unknown=1. compatible=1. v600=1. v0=1. c1=1. box_verdict=1. f1=1. f2=1. f3=1.
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of process initial clauses ========
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== CLAUSES FOR SEARCH ====================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of clauses for search =============
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== SEARCH ================================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  % Starting search at 0.02 seconds.
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== PROOF =================================
% 0.79/1.10  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.79/1.10  % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  % Proof 1 at 0.02 (+ 0.00) seconds.
% 0.79/1.10  % Length of proof is 11.
% 0.79/1.10  % Level of proof is 3.
% 0.79/1.10  % Maximum clause weight is 9.000.
% 0.79/1.10  % Given clauses 15.
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  1 (all X -less(X,X)) # label(irreflexive) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  2 (all X all Y all Z (less(X,Y) & less(Y,Z) -> less(X,Z))) # label(transitive) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  13 (all X all A all B (in_open(X,A,B) <-> less(A,X) & less(X,B))) # label(in_open) # label(axiom) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  22 --(exists X (in_open(X,v0,v600) & less(v600,X))) # label(odrl423) # label(negated_conjecture) # label(non_clause).  [assumption].
% 0.79/1.10  24 in_open(c1,v0,v600) # label(odrl423) # label(negated_conjecture).  [clausify(22)].
% 0.79/1.10  25 -in_open(A,B,C) | less(A,C) # label(in_open) # label(axiom).  [clausify(13)].
% 0.79/1.10  46 less(v600,c1) # label(odrl423) # label(negated_conjecture).  [clausify(22)].
% 0.79/1.10  48 -less(A,A) # label(irreflexive) # label(axiom).  [clausify(1)].
% 0.79/1.10  58 -less(A,B) | -less(B,C) | less(A,C) # label(transitive) # label(axiom).  [clausify(2)].
% 0.79/1.10  79 less(c1,v600).  [resolve(25,a,24,a)].
% 0.79/1.10  107 $F.  [ur(58,b,46,a,c,48,a),unit_del(a,79)].
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of proof ==========================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== STATISTICS ============================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  Given=15. Generated=74. Kept=57. proofs=1.
% 0.79/1.10  Usable=15. Sos=33. Demods=0. Limbo=8, Disabled=60. Hints=0.
% 0.79/1.10  Megabytes=0.11.
% 0.79/1.10  User_CPU=0.02, System_CPU=0.00, Wall_clock=0.
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of statistics =====================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  ============================== end of search =========================
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  THEOREM PROVED
% 0.79/1.10  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  Exiting with 1 proof.
% 0.79/1.10  
% 0.79/1.10  Process 9659 exit (max_proofs) Tue Apr 28 18:52:29 2026
% 0.79/1.10  Prover9 interrupted
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------