TSTP Solution File: COL052-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : COL052-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n025.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 18:21:29 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : COL052-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n025.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 : Sun Aug 27 04:23:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.65 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.65 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.65 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.65 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Result :Theorem 0.020000s
% 0.21/0.65 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.020000s
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 % File : COL052-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.21/0.65 % Domain : Combinatory Logic
% 0.21/0.65 % Problem : A Question on Agreeable Birds
% 0.21/0.65 % Version : Especial.
% 0.21/0.65 % Theorem formulation : Implicit definition of agreeable.
% 0.21/0.65 % English : For all birds x and y, there exists a bird z that composes
% 0.21/0.65 % x with y for all birds w. Prove that if C is agreeable then
% 0.21/0.65 % A is agreeable.
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Refs : [Smu85] Smullyan (1978), To Mock a Mocking Bird and Other Logi
% 0.21/0.65 % Source : [ANL]
% 0.21/0.65 % Names : bird4.ver1.in [ANL]
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.65 % Rating : 0.17 v8.1.0, 0.20 v7.5.0, 0.21 v7.4.0, 0.26 v7.3.0, 0.16 v7.1.0, 0.06 v7.0.0, 0.05 v6.4.0, 0.16 v6.3.0, 0.06 v6.2.0, 0.00 v6.0.0, 0.10 v5.5.0, 0.05 v5.4.0, 0.00 v5.1.0, 0.07 v5.0.0, 0.00 v4.0.1, 0.07 v4.0.0, 0.08 v3.7.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.21/0.65 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of literals : 4 ( 4 equ; 1 neg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 0 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of variables : 5 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.21/0.65 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_PEQ_UEQ
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Comments :
% 0.21/0.65 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 %----For all birds x and y, there exists a bird z that composes x with
% 0.21/0.65 %----y for all birds w.
% 0.21/0.65 %---- FAx FAy TEz FAw [response(z,w) = response(x,response(y,w))].
% 0.21/0.65 %---- response(comp(x,y),w) = response(x,response(y,w)).
% 0.21/0.65 cnf(composer_exists,axiom,
% 0.21/0.65 response(compose(X,Y),W) = response(X,response(Y,W)) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %----Hypothesis: If C is agreeable then A is agreeable.
% 0.21/0.65 %---- -[ If FAx TEy (response(C,y) = response(x,y)),
% 0.21/0.65 %---- then FAw TEv (response(A,v) = response(w,v)) ].
% 0.21/0.65 %---- -[ TEx FAy -(response(C,y) = response(x,y)) |
% 0.21/0.65 %---- FAw TEv (response(A,v) = response(w,v)) ].
% 0.21/0.65 %---- FAx TEy (response(C,y) = response(x,y)) and
% 0.21/0.65 %---- TEw FAv -(response(A,v) = response(w,v).
% 0.21/0.65 %---- response(C,commom_bird(x)) = response(x,common_bird(x)) and
% 0.21/0.65 %---- -(response(A,v) = response(odd_bird,v)).
% 0.21/0.65 cnf(agreeable1,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.65 response(c,common_bird(X)) = response(X,common_bird(X)) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 cnf(prove_a_is_agreeable,negated_conjecture,
% 0.21/0.65 response(a,V) != response(odd_bird,V) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %----C composes A with B. WHY is this here?
% 0.21/0.65 cnf(c_composes_a_with_b,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.65 c = compose(a,b) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.65 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.65 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.65 %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:8)
% 0.21/0.65 %VarNum:11(SingletonVarNum:5)
% 0.21/0.65 %MaxLitNum:1
% 0.21/0.65 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.21/0.65 %SharedTerms:6
% 0.21/0.65 %goalClause: 12
% 0.21/0.65 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.21/0.65 [9]E(f3(a1,a2),a4)
% 0.21/0.65 [12]~E(f6(a7,x121),f6(a1,x121))
% 0.21/0.65 [10]E(f6(a4,f5(x101)),f6(x101,f5(x101)))
% 0.21/0.65 [11]E(f6(f3(x111,x112),x113),f6(x111,f6(x112,x113)))
% 0.21/0.65 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.65 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.21/0.65 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.21/0.65 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.21/0.65 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41,x43),f3(x42,x43))
% 0.21/0.65 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x53,x51),f3(x53,x52))
% 0.21/0.65 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f5(x61),f5(x62))
% 0.21/0.65 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f6(x71,x73),f6(x72,x73))
% 0.21/0.65 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f6(x83,x81),f6(x83,x82))
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(13,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(a4,f3(a1,a2))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,2])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(15,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (~E(f6(a7,f6(x151,x152)),f6(f3(a1,x151),x152))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,9,11,2,7,3])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(18,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(f6(x181,f3(a1,a2)),f6(x181,a4))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,9,11,2,7,3,8])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(23,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(f6(f3(a1,a2),x231),f6(a4,x231))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,9,2,7])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(24,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (~E(f6(a7,a4),f6(a1,f3(a1,a2)))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,9,18,2,7,3])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (~E(f6(a7,f6(x341,a4)),f6(f3(a1,x341),f3(a1,a2)))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[13,15,18,7,2,3])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(37,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(f6(x371,f6(x372,x373)),f6(f3(x371,x372),x373))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,2])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(38,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (~E(f6(f3(a7,x381),a4),f6(f3(a1,x381),f3(a1,a2)))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,34,2,3])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(45,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(f6(f3(a1,a2),f5(x451)),f6(x451,f5(x451)))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,23,24,2,3])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(47,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (E(f6(x471,f5(x471)),f6(f3(a1,a2),f5(x471)))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[45,2])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(52,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 ($false),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,37,47,38,2,3]),
% 0.21/0.66 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.66 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.66 % Total time :0.020000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------