TSTP Solution File: LAT266-2 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LAT266-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n006.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 05:57:54 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.68s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : LAT266-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n006.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 : Thu Aug 24 08:51:53 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.60 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.68 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.68 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.68 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.68 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.68 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 % File : LAT266-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.20/0.68 % Domain : Analysis
% 0.20/0.68 % Problem : Problem about Tarski's fixed point theorem
% 0.20/0.68 % Version : [Pau06] axioms : Reduced > Especial.
% 0.20/0.68 % English :
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 % Refs : [Pau06] Paulson (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.68 % Source : [Pau06]
% 0.20/0.68 % Names :
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.68 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.08 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.1.0, 0.11 v4.0.1, 0.17 v3.3.0, 0.14 v3.2.0
% 0.20/0.68 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 3 RR)
% 0.20/0.68 % Number of literals : 4 ( 2 equ; 1 neg)
% 0.20/0.68 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.68 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.68 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.68 % Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.68 % Number of variables : 2 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.20/0.68 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_SEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 % Comments : The problems in the [Pau06] collection each have very many axioms,
% 0.20/0.68 % of which only a small selection are required for the refutation.
% 0.20/0.68 % The mission is to find those few axioms, after which a refutation
% 0.20/0.68 % can be quite easily found. This version has only the necessary
% 0.20/0.68 % axioms.
% 0.20/0.68 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.68 c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),tc_set(t_a)) ).
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.68 ~ c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(c_Tarski_Odual(v_cl,t_a),t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),tc_set(t_a)) ).
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 cnf(cls_Tarski_OA_A_61_61_Apset_Acl_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.68 v_A = c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) ).
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 cnf(cls_Tarski_Opset_A_Idual_Acl_J_A_61_61_Apset_Acl_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.68 c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(c_Tarski_Odual(V_cl,T_a),T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) = c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(V_cl,T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) ).
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.68 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.68 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.68 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:12)
% 0.20/0.68 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:2)
% 0.20/0.68 %MaxLitNum:1
% 0.20/0.68 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.20/0.68 %SharedTerms:12
% 0.20/0.68 %goalClause: 15 16
% 0.20/0.68 %singleGoalClaCount:2
% 0.20/0.68 [13]E(f3(a1,a2,a5),a6)
% 0.20/0.68 [15]P1(a8,f3(a1,a2,a5),f7(a2))
% 0.20/0.68 [16]~P1(a8,f3(f4(a1,a2),a2,a5),f7(a2))
% 0.20/0.68 [14]E(f3(f4(x141,x142),x142,a5),f3(x141,x142,a5))
% 0.20/0.68 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.68 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.20/0.68 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.20/0.68 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.20/0.69 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41,x43,x44),f3(x42,x43,x44))
% 0.20/0.69 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x53,x51,x54),f3(x53,x52,x54))
% 0.20/0.69 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f3(x63,x64,x61),f3(x63,x64,x62))
% 0.20/0.69 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f4(x71,x73),f4(x72,x73))
% 0.20/0.69 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f4(x83,x81),f4(x83,x82))
% 0.20/0.69 [9]~E(x91,x92)+E(f7(x91),f7(x92))
% 0.20/0.69 [10]P1(x102,x103,x104)+~E(x101,x102)+~P1(x101,x103,x104)
% 0.20/0.69 [11]P1(x113,x112,x114)+~E(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x111,x114)
% 0.20/0.69 [12]P1(x123,x124,x122)+~E(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x124,x121)
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(18,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (~E(f3(a1,a2,a5),f3(f4(a1,a2),a2,a5))),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,13,16,2,11])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(30,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 ($false),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[14,18,2]),
% 0.20/0.69 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.69 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.69 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------