TSTP Solution File: LCL682+1.001 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL682+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 : n017.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 06:50:27 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : LCL682+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
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 18:28:39 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.59 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.64 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.64 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.64 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.64 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 % File : LCL682+1.001 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.20/0.65 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Modal Logic)
% 0.20/0.65 % Problem : In S4, path through a labyrinth, size 1
% 0.20/0.65 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.65 % English :
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 % Refs : [BHS00] Balsiger et al. (2000), A Benchmark Method for the Pro
% 0.20/0.65 % : [Kam08] Kaminski (2008), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.65 % Source : [Kam08]
% 0.20/0.65 % Names : s4_path_p [BHS00]
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.65 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v4.0.0
% 0.20/0.65 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 3 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.65 % Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.65 % Maximal formula atoms : 21 ( 8 avg)
% 0.20/0.65 % Number of connectives : 43 ( 21 ~; 20 |; 1 &)
% 0.20/0.65 % ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.65 % Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 8 avg)
% 0.20/0.65 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.65 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.65 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.20/0.65 % Number of variables : 18 ( 17 !; 1 ?)
% 0.20/0.65 % SPC : FOF_THM_EPR_NEQ
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 % Comments : A naive relational encoding of the modal logic problem into
% 0.20/0.65 % first-order logic.
% 0.20/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 fof(reflexivity,axiom,
% 0.20/0.65 ! [X] : r1(X,X) ).
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 fof(transitivity,axiom,
% 0.20/0.65 ! [X,Y,Z] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ( r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 & r1(Y,Z) )
% 0.20/0.65 => r1(X,Z) ) ).
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 fof(main,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.65 ~ ? [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ~ ( ~ ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 | ~ ( ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p16(X) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p12(X) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p14(X) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ~ ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p12(X) ) ) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p15(X) ) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p13(X) ) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p12(X) ) )
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.65 | ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.65 ( ~ r1(Y,X)
% 0.20/0.65 | p11(X) ) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.65 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.65 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.65 %ClaNum:18(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.65 %VarNum:20(SingletonVarNum:10)
% 0.20/0.65 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.65 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.65 %SharedTerms:21
% 0.20/0.65 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 17
% 0.20/0.65 %singleGoalClaCount:12
% 0.20/0.65 [1]P1(a1,a2)
% 0.20/0.65 [2]P1(a1,a3)
% 0.20/0.65 [3]P1(a1,a5)
% 0.20/0.65 [4]P1(a1,a7)
% 0.20/0.65 [5]P1(a2,a4)
% 0.20/0.65 [6]P1(a3,a6)
% 0.20/0.65 [7]P1(a5,a8)
% 0.20/0.65 [8]P1(a7,a9)
% 0.20/0.65 [10]~P2(a8)
% 0.20/0.65 [11]~P4(a4)
% 0.20/0.65 [12]~P5(a6)
% 0.20/0.65 [13]~P3(a9)
% 0.20/0.65 [9]P1(x91,x91)
% 0.20/0.65 [14]P7(x141)+~P1(x142,x141)+~P1(a1,x142)
% 0.20/0.65 [16]P2(x161)+~P1(x162,x161)+~P1(a1,x162)
% 0.20/0.65 [17]P6(x171)+~P1(x172,x171)+~P1(a1,x172)
% 0.20/0.65 [18]~P1(x181,x183)+P1(x181,x182)+~P1(x183,x182)
% 0.20/0.65 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P1(a1,a8)),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,10,16])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(38,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 ($false),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,7,9,21,16,18]),
% 0.20/0.65 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.65 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.65 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------