TSTP Solution File: LCL088-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL088-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n011.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 : Thu Aug 31 06:47:56 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 9.36s 9.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.36s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.10 % Problem : LCL088-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.06/0.11 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.11/0.31 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.31 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.31 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.31 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.31 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.31 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.31 % DateTime : Fri Aug 25 05:38:23 EDT 2023
% 0.11/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 9.36/9.51 %-------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 % File :CSE---1.6
% 9.36/9.51 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 9.36/9.51 % Transform :cnf
% 9.36/9.51 % Format :tptp:raw
% 9.36/9.51 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 % Result :Theorem 8.840000s
% 9.36/9.51 % Output :CNFRefutation 8.840000s
% 9.36/9.51 %-------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 % File : LCL088-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 9.36/9.51 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Implicational propositional)
% 9.36/9.51 % Problem : IC-3 depends on the 4th Lukasiewicz axiom
% 9.36/9.51 % Version : [TPTP] axioms.
% 9.36/9.51 % English : Axiomatisations of the Implicational propositional calculus
% 9.36/9.51 % are {IC-2,IC-3,IC-4} by Tarski-Bernays and single Lukasiewicz
% 9.36/9.51 % axioms.Show that IC-3 depends on the fourth Lukasiewicz
% 9.36/9.51 % axiom.
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 % Refs : [Luk48] Lukasiewicz (1948), The Shortest Axiom of the Implicat
% 9.36/9.51 % : [Pfe88] Pfenning (1988), Single Axioms in the Implicational Pr
% 9.36/9.51 % Source : [TPTP]
% 9.36/9.51 % Names :
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 9.36/9.51 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.07 v6.0.0, 0.00 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.17 v5.3.0, 0.20 v5.2.0, 0.08 v5.1.0, 0.19 v5.0.0, 0.20 v4.0.1, 0.00 v2.6.0, 0.29 v2.5.0, 0.00 v2.4.0, 0.00 v2.3.0, 0.14 v2.2.1, 0.33 v2.1.0, 0.38 v2.0.0
% 9.36/9.51 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 3 ( 2 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 9.36/9.51 % Number of literals : 5 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 9.36/9.51 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 9.36/9.51 % Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% 9.36/9.51 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 9.36/9.51 % Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 9.36/9.51 % Number of variables : 7 ( 2 sgn)
% 9.36/9.51 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 % Comments :
% 9.36/9.51 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 9.36/9.51 ( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X,Y))
% 9.36/9.51 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 9.36/9.51 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 cnf(ic_JLukasiewicz_4,axiom,
% 9.36/9.51 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(implies(P,Q),implies(R,S)),implies(T,implies(implies(S,P),implies(R,P))))) ).
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 cnf(prove_ic_3,negated_conjecture,
% 9.36/9.51 ~ is_a_theorem(implies(implies(implies(a,b),a),a)) ).
% 9.36/9.51
% 9.36/9.51 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 %-------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.51 % Proof found
% 9.36/9.51 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 9.36/9.51 % SZS output start Proof
% 9.36/9.51 %ClaNum:3(EqnAxiom:0)
% 9.36/9.51 %VarNum:13(SingletonVarNum:7)
% 9.36/9.51 %MaxLitNum:3
% 9.36/9.51 %MaxfuncDepth:4
% 9.36/9.51 %SharedTerms:6
% 9.36/9.51 %goalClause: 2
% 9.36/9.51 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 9.36/9.52 [2]~P1(f1(f1(f1(a2,a3),a2),a2))
% 9.36/9.52 [1]P1(f1(f1(f1(x11,x12),f1(x13,x14)),f1(x15,f1(f1(x14,x11),f1(x13,x11)))))
% 9.36/9.52 [3]P1(x31)+~P1(x32)+~P1(f1(x32,x31))
% 9.36/9.52 %EqnAxiom
% 9.36/9.52
% 9.36/9.52 %-------------------------------------------
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(4,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x41,f1(f1(x42,x43),f1(x44,x43))))+~P1(f1(f1(x43,x45),f1(x44,x42)))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(6,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(x61,x62),f1(x63,x62)),f1(x62,x64)),f1(x65,f1(x62,x64))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(7,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x71,f1(x72,f1(f1(x72,x73),f1(x74,x73)))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,6,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(11,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x111,f1(f1(x111,x112),f1(x113,x112))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,7,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(17,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(x171,x172),f1(x173,x172)),x174),f1(x171,x174)))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,7,4,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(19,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (~P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(f1(a2,a3),a2),x191),f1(x192,x191)),a2))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,2,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(22,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(f1(f1(x221,x222),f1(x223,x222)),x224),f1(x221,x224)),x225),f1(x226,x225)))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,11,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(25,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (~P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(f1(x251,x252),f1(x253,x252)),x254),f1(x251,x254)),a2))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[19,22,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(28,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x281,f1(f1(x282,x283),f1(x284,f1(x282,x283)))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,6,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(32,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(x321,x322),f1(x323,f1(x321,x322))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,28,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(37,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(f1(x371,x372),x371),f1(x373,x371)))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,32,4,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(39,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (~P1(f1(f1(a2,x391),a2))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[25,37,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(42,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (~P1(f1(f1(f1(f1(a2,x421),x422),f1(x423,x422)),a2))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[39,17,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(48,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x481,f1(f1(x482,f1(x482,x483)),f1(x484,f1(x482,x483)))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[42,37,17,3,4])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(53,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(f1(x531,f1(x531,x532)),f1(x533,f1(x531,x532))))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[32,48,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(65,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 (P1(f1(x651,f1(f1(f1(x652,x653),x652),x652)))),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[37,53,3])).
% 9.36/9.52 cnf(69,plain,
% 9.36/9.52 ($false),
% 9.36/9.52 inference(scs_inference,[],[37,65,2,3]),
% 9.36/9.52 ['proof']).
% 9.36/9.52 % SZS output end Proof
% 9.36/9.52 % Total time :8.840000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------