%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SRASS---0.1
% Problem : SEU040+1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : SRASS -q2 -a 0 10 10 10 -i3 -n60 %s
% Computer : art02.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 : Thu Dec 30 00:42:12 EST 2010
% Result : Theorem 0.94s
% Output : Solution 0.94s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP20095/SEU040+1.tptp
% Adding relevance values
% Extracting the conjecture
% Sorting axioms by relevance
% Looking for THM ...
% found
% SZS status THM for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP20095/SEU040+1.tptp
% SZS output start Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP20095/SEU040+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 20191
% TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
% PrfWatch: 0.00 CPU 0.00 WC
% # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% # Problem is unsatisfiable (or provable), constructing proof object
% # SZS status Theorem
% # SZS output start CNFRefutation.
% fof(5, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(relation(X2)=>subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', t89_relat_1)).
% fof(6, axiom,![X1]:![X2]:(relation(X2)=>subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', t99_relat_1)).
% fof(38, conjecture,![X1]:![X2]:((relation(X2)&function(X2))=>(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))&subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2)))),file('/tmp/SRASS.s.p', t76_funct_1)).
% fof(39, negated_conjecture,~(![X1]:![X2]:((relation(X2)&function(X2))=>(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))&subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2))))),inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[38])).
% fof(61, plain,![X1]:![X2]:(~(relation(X2))|subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[5])).
% fof(62, plain,![X3]:![X4]:(~(relation(X4))|subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X4,X3)),relation_dom(X4))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[61])).
% cnf(63,plain,(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_dom(X1))|~relation(X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[62])).
% fof(64, plain,![X1]:![X2]:(~(relation(X2))|subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[6])).
% fof(65, plain,![X3]:![X4]:(~(relation(X4))|subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X4,X3)),relation_rng(X4))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[64])).
% cnf(66,plain,(subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2)),relation_rng(X1))|~relation(X1)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[65])).
% fof(177, negated_conjecture,?[X1]:?[X2]:((relation(X2)&function(X2))&(~(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_dom(X2)))|~(subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X1)),relation_rng(X2))))),inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[39])).
% fof(178, negated_conjecture,?[X3]:?[X4]:((relation(X4)&function(X4))&(~(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X4,X3)),relation_dom(X4)))|~(subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(X4,X3)),relation_rng(X4))))),inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[177])).
% fof(179, negated_conjecture,((relation(esk13_0)&function(esk13_0))&(~(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_dom(esk13_0)))|~(subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0))))),inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[178])).
% cnf(180,negated_conjecture,(~subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0))|~subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_dom(esk13_0))),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[179])).
% cnf(182,negated_conjecture,(relation(esk13_0)),inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[179])).
% cnf(292,negated_conjecture,(subset(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,X1)),relation_dom(esk13_0))),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[63,182,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(300,negated_conjecture,(subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,X1)),relation_rng(esk13_0))),inference(pm,[status(thm)],[66,182,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(546,negated_conjecture,($false|~subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0))),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[180,292,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(547,negated_conjecture,(~subset(relation_rng(relation_dom_restriction(esk13_0,esk12_0)),relation_rng(esk13_0))),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[546,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(563,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(rw,[status(thm)],[547,300,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(564,negated_conjecture,($false),inference(cn,[status(thm)],[563,theory(equality)])).
% cnf(565,negated_conjecture,($false),564,['proof']).
% # SZS output end CNFRefutation
% # Processed clauses : 169
% # ...of these trivial : 5
% # ...subsumed : 18
% # ...remaining for further processing: 146
% # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% # Backward-subsumed : 0
% # Backward-rewritten : 29
% # Generated clauses : 262
% # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 244
% # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% # Paramodulations : 256
% # Factorizations : 0
% # Equation resolutions : 0
% # Current number of processed clauses: 117
% # Positive orientable unit clauses: 63
% # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% # Negative unit clauses : 7
% # Non-unit-clauses : 47
% # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 55
% # ...number of literals in the above : 70
% # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 72
% # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 63
% # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 129
% # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% # Indexed BW rewrite attempts : 52
% # Indexed BW rewrite successes : 12
% # Backwards rewriting index: 142 leaves, 1.19+/-0.813 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-from index: 58 leaves, 1.16+/-0.761 terms/leaf
% # Paramod-into index: 127 leaves, 1.14+/-0.624 terms/leaf
% # -------------------------------------------------
% # User time : 0.022 s
% # System time : 0.004 s
% # Total time : 0.026 s
% # Maximum resident set size: 0 pages
% PrfWatch: 0.11 CPU 0.19 WC
% FINAL PrfWatch: 0.11 CPU 0.19 WC
% SZS output end Solution for /tmp/SystemOnTPTP20095/SEU040+1.tptp
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------