%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : REL014+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art07.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory : 2018MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Dec 29 21:37:32 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 0.87s
% Output : Solution 0.87s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 0
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% Reading problem from /tmp/SystemOnTPTP1574/REL014+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ... found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP1574/REL014+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP1574/REL014+1.tptp
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% TreeLimitedRun: /home/graph/tptp/Systems/EP---1.2/eproof --print-statistics -xAuto -tAuto --cpu-limit=60 --proof-time-unlimited --memory-limit=Auto --tstp-in --tstp-out /tmp/SRASS.s.p
% TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 60s
% TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 120s
% TreeLimitedRun: PID is 1670
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.00 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(2, axiom,![X1]:composition(X1,one)=X1,file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', composition_identity)).
% fof(6, axiom,![X1]:converse(converse(X1))=X1,file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_idempotence)).
% fof(7, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', converse_multiplicativity)).
% fof(14, conjecture,![X1]:(composition(X1,one)=X1&composition(one,X1)=X1),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', goals)).
% fof(15, negated_conjecture,~(![X1]:(composition(X1,one)=X1&composition(one,X1)=X1)),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[14])).
% fof(18, plain,![X2]:composition(X2,one)=X2,inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[2])).
% cnf(19,plain,(composition(X1,one)=X1),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[18])).
% fof(26, plain,![X2]:converse(converse(X2))=X2,inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[6])).
% cnf(27,plain,(converse(converse(X1))=X1),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[26])).
% fof(28, plain,![X3]:![X4]:converse(composition(X3,X4))=composition(converse(X4),converse(X3)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[7])).
% cnf(29,plain,(converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[28])).
% fof(42, negated_conjecture,?[X1]:(~(composition(X1,one)=X1)|~(composition(one,X1)=X1)),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[15])).
% fof(43, negated_conjecture,?[X2]:(~(composition(X2,one)=X2)|~(composition(one,X2)=X2)),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[42])).
% fof(44, negated_conjecture,(~(composition(esk1_0,one)=esk1_0)|~(composition(one,esk1_0)=esk1_0)),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[43])).
% cnf(45,negated_conjecture,(composition(one,esk1_0)!=esk1_0|composition(esk1_0,one)!=esk1_0),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[44])).
% cnf(47,negated_conjecture,(composition(one,esk1_0)!=esk1_0|$false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[45,19,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(48,negated_conjecture,(composition(one,esk1_0)!=esk1_0),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[47,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(49,plain,(composition(converse(X1),X2)=converse(composition(converse(X2),X1))),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[29,27,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(64,plain,(converse(converse(X1))=composition(converse(one),X1)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[49,19,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(68,plain,(X1=composition(converse(one),X1)),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[64,27,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(71,plain,(one=converse(one)),inference(spm,[status(thm)],[19,68,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(82,plain,(composition(one,X1)=X1),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[68,71,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(87,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[48,82,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(88,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[87,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(89,negated_conjecture,($false),88,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 12
% # ...of these trivial : 0
% # ...subsumed : 0
% # ...remaining for further processing: 12
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 3
% # Generated clauses : 24
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 20
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 24
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 9
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 8
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% # Negative unit clauses : 0
% # Non-unit-clauses : 0
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 21
% # ...number of literals in the above : 21
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 5
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 5
% # Backwards rewriting index: 17 leaves, 1.18+/-0.381 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 9 leaves, 1.11+/-0.314 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 13 leaves, 1.15+/-0.361 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.008 s
% # System time : 0.003 s
% # Total time : 0.011 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.10 CPU 0.17 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.10 CPU 0.17 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP1574/REL014+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------