TSTP Solution File: COM004-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : COM004-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n029.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 Aug 30 18:35:08 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.55s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.57s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : COM004-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 13:44:11 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.55/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.60 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.55/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.55/0.60 % Transform :cnf
% 0.55/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.55/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.55/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.55/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.61 % File : COM004-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.55/0.61 % Domain : Computing Theory
% 0.55/0.61 % Problem : Part of completeness of resolution
% 0.55/0.61 % Version : Especial.
% 0.55/0.61 % English : Part of [Bun83]'s proof of the completeness of resolution uses
% 0.55/0.61 % the notion of failure nodes. This proves a special case when a
% 0.55/0.61 % parent is the empty failure node.
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 % Refs : [Bun83] Bundy (1983), The Computer Modelling of Mathematical R
% 0.55/0.61 % Source : [TPTP]
% 0.55/0.61 % Names :
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.55/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.08 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.3.0, 0.14 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.55/0.61 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% 0.55/0.61 % Number of literals : 13 ( 2 equ; 5 neg)
% 0.55/0.61 % Maximal clause size : 5 ( 1 avg)
% 0.55/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.55/0.61 % Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty)
% 0.55/0.61 % Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.55/0.61 % Number of variables : 10 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.55/0.61 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_SEQ_HRN
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 % Comments :
% 0.55/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(make_node,axiom,
% 0.55/0.61 ( failure_node(parent_of(X,Y),or(C,D))
% 0.55/0.61 | ~ failure_node(X,or(C,P))
% 0.55/0.61 | ~ failure_node(Y,or(D,Q))
% 0.55/0.61 | ~ contradictory(P,Q)
% 0.55/0.61 | ~ siblings(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(not_x_contradicts_x,axiom,
% 0.55/0.61 contradictory(negate(X),X) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(x_contradicts_not_x,axiom,
% 0.55/0.61 contradictory(X,negate(X)) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(n_left_and_n_right_are_siblings,axiom,
% 0.55/0.61 siblings(left_child_of(X),right_child_of(X)) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 %----Stuff for the theorem
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(n_left_is_atom,hypothesis,
% 0.55/0.61 failure_node(n_left,or(empty,atom)) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(n_right_is_not_atom,hypothesis,
% 0.55/0.61 failure_node(n_right,or(empty,negate(atom))) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(n_left_equals_left_child_of_n,hypothesis,
% 0.55/0.61 n_left = left_child_of(n) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(n_right_equals_right_child_of_n,hypothesis,
% 0.55/0.61 n_right = right_child_of(n) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 %----The goal to be proved.
% 0.55/0.61 cnf(goal_is_there_an_empty_node,negated_conjecture,
% 0.55/0.61 ~ failure_node(Z,or(empty,empty)) ).
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.55/0.61 % Proof found
% 0.55/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.55/0.61 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.55/0.61 %ClaNum:25(EqnAxiom:16)
% 0.55/0.61 %VarNum:21(SingletonVarNum:10)
% 0.55/0.61 %MaxLitNum:5
% 0.55/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.55/0.61 %SharedTerms:15
% 0.55/0.61 %goalClause: 24
% 0.55/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.55/0.61 [17]E(f2(a1),a5)
% 0.55/0.61 [18]E(f6(a1),a7)
% 0.55/0.61 [22]P3(a5,f9(a3,a4))
% 0.55/0.61 [23]P3(a7,f9(a3,f8(a4)))
% 0.55/0.61 [19]P1(x191,f8(x191))
% 0.55/0.61 [20]P1(f8(x201),x201)
% 0.55/0.61 [21]P2(f2(x211),f6(x211))
% 0.55/0.61 [24]~P3(x241,f9(a3,a3))
% 0.55/0.61 [25]~P2(x251,x252)+~P1(x255,x256)+~P3(x252,f9(x254,x256))+~P3(x251,f9(x253,x255))+P3(f10(x251,x252),f9(x253,x254))
% 0.55/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.55/0.61 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.55/0.61 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.55/0.61 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.55/0.61 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f2(x41),f2(x42))
% 0.55/0.61 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f6(x51),f6(x52))
% 0.55/0.61 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f8(x61),f8(x62))
% 0.55/0.61 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f9(x71,x73),f9(x72,x73))
% 0.55/0.61 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f9(x83,x81),f9(x83,x82))
% 0.55/0.61 [9]~E(x91,x92)+E(f10(x91,x93),f10(x92,x93))
% 0.55/0.61 [10]~E(x101,x102)+E(f10(x103,x101),f10(x103,x102))
% 0.55/0.61 [11]P1(x112,x113)+~E(x111,x112)+~P1(x111,x113)
% 0.55/0.61 [12]P1(x123,x122)+~E(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x121)
% 0.55/0.61 [13]P3(x132,x133)+~E(x131,x132)+~P3(x131,x133)
% 0.55/0.61 [14]P3(x143,x142)+~E(x141,x142)+~P3(x143,x141)
% 0.55/0.61 [15]P2(x152,x153)+~E(x151,x152)+~P2(x151,x153)
% 0.55/0.61 [16]P2(x163,x162)+~E(x161,x162)+~P2(x163,x161)
% 0.55/0.61
% 0.55/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(27,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (P2(f2(a1),a7)),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,18,21,2,16])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (P2(f2(x281),f6(x281))),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[21])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(32,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (~P3(x321,f9(a3,a3))),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[24])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(33,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (P3(f2(a1),f9(a3,a4))),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,17,18,22,21,28,2,16,15,14,13])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(44,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (~P1(a4,x441)+~P3(f6(a1),f9(a3,x441))),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,32,17,18,22,19,20,21,28,2,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,25])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(48,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 (P1(x481,f8(x481))),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[19])).
% 0.57/0.62 cnf(50,plain,
% 0.57/0.62 ($false),
% 0.57/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,23,19,48,33,27,44,25]),
% 0.57/0.62 ['proof']).
% 0.57/0.62 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.57/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------