TSTP Solution File: LCL674+1.001 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL674+1.001 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n007.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 06:50:21 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : LCL674+1.001 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Fri Aug 25 06:43:25 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.61 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % File : LCL674+1.001 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.20/0.62 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Modal Logic)
% 0.20/0.62 % Problem : In S4, the branching formula made provable, size 1
% 0.20/0.62 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.62 % English : The branching formula plus a negation symbol in front and an
% 0.20/0.62 % additional subformula to make the formula provable.
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Refs : [BHS00] Balsiger et al. (2000), A Benchmark Method for the Pro
% 0.20/0.62 % : [Kam08] Kaminski (2008), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.62 % Source : [Kam08]
% 0.20/0.62 % Names : s4_branch_p [BHS00]
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.62 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.25 v5.5.0, 0.08 v5.4.0, 0.09 v5.3.0, 0.17 v5.2.0, 0.07 v5.0.0, 0.05 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v4.0.0
% 0.20/0.62 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 3 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of atoms : 41 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal formula atoms : 37 ( 13 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of connectives : 72 ( 34 ~; 22 |; 15 &)
% 0.20/0.62 % ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal formula depth : 19 ( 9 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of variables : 13 ( 12 !; 1 ?)
% 0.20/0.62 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Comments : A naive relational encoding of the modal logic problem into
% 0.20/0.62 % first-order logic.
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 fof(reflexivity,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ! [X] : r1(X,X) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 fof(transitivity,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ! [X,Y,Z] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ( r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.62 & r1(Y,Z) )
% 0.20/0.62 => r1(X,Z) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 fof(main,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.62 ~ ? [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ~ ( ~ ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.62 | p2(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ ( ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.62 | ( ( ( ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ ( ~ p2(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & ~ p102(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & p101(X) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ ( p2(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & ~ p102(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & p101(X) ) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ ( ~ p101(Y)
% 0.20/0.62 & p100(Y) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( ( ( ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p2(X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p101(X) )
% 0.20/0.62 | p2(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | p2(X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p101(X) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p2(Y) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p101(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( ( ( ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p1(X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p100(X) )
% 0.20/0.62 | p1(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.62 | p1(X)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p100(X) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p1(Y) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p100(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( p101(Y)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p102(Y) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ( p100(Y)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ p101(Y) ) ) )
% 0.20/0.62 & ~ p101(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & p100(X) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.62 %ClaNum:19(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.62 %VarNum:71(SingletonVarNum:21)
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxLitNum:6
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.62 %SharedTerms:3
% 0.20/0.62 %goalClause: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 19
% 0.20/0.62 %singleGoalClaCount:2
% 0.20/0.62 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.62 [3]~P4(a1)
% 0.20/0.62 [2]P3(x21,x21)
% 0.20/0.62 [4]P5(x41)+~P3(a1,x41)
% 0.20/0.62 [5]~P6(x51)+P4(x51)+~P3(a1,x51)
% 0.20/0.62 [6]~P4(x61)+P1(x61)+~P3(a1,x61)
% 0.20/0.62 [15]~P3(x151,x153)+P3(x151,x152)+~P3(x153,x152)
% 0.20/0.62 [7]~P1(x71)+P4(x71)+~P3(a1,x71)+P5(f2(x71))
% 0.20/0.62 [8]~P1(x81)+P4(x81)+~P3(a1,x81)+P4(f3(x81))
% 0.20/0.62 [9]~P1(x91)+P4(x91)+~P3(a1,x91)+P4(f2(x91))
% 0.20/0.62 [10]~P1(x101)+P4(x101)+~P3(a1,x101)+~P5(f3(x101))
% 0.20/0.62 [11]~P1(x111)+P4(x111)+~P3(a1,x111)+~P6(f3(x111))
% 0.20/0.62 [12]~P1(x121)+P4(x121)+~P3(a1,x121)+~P6(f2(x121))
% 0.20/0.62 [13]~P1(x131)+P4(x131)+P3(x131,f3(x131))+~P3(a1,x131)
% 0.20/0.62 [14]~P1(x141)+P4(x141)+P3(x141,f2(x141))+~P3(a1,x141)
% 0.20/0.62 [16]~P4(x161)+~P4(x162)+~P3(x162,x161)+P5(x161)+~P5(x162)+~P3(a1,x162)
% 0.20/0.62 [18]~P1(x181)+~P2(x182)+~P3(x182,x181)+P2(x181)+~P1(x182)+~P3(a1,x182)
% 0.20/0.62 [19]~P1(x191)+~P2(x192)+~P3(x191,x192)+P2(x191)+~P1(x192)+~P3(a1,x191)
% 0.20/0.62 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (P3(x211,x211)),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[2])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(23,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (P3(x231,x231)),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[2])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(25,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (P3(a1,f3(a1))),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,21,23,3,4,14,13])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(26,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (P3(x261,x261)),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[2])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (~P5(f3(a1))),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,21,23,26,3,4,14,13,10])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(45,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 ($false),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,25,4]),
% 0.20/0.62 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------