TSTP Solution File: LAT272-2 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LAT272-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n005.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 05:57:57 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : LAT272-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.18/0.34 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.18/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.18/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 05:46:38 EDT 2023
% 0.18/0.35 % 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 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File : LAT272-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.20/0.61 % Domain : Analysis
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem : Problem about Tarski's fixed point theorem
% 0.20/0.61 % Version : [Pau06] axioms : Reduced > Especial.
% 0.20/0.61 % English :
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Refs : [Pau06] Paulson (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.61 % Source : [Pau06]
% 0.20/0.61 % Names :
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.2.0
% 0.20/0.61 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of literals : 6 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 prp; 3-4 aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of variables : 3 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.20/0.61 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Comments : The problems in the [Pau06] collection each have very many axioms,
% 0.20/0.61 % of which only a small selection are required for the refutation.
% 0.20/0.61 % The mission is to find those few axioms, after which a refutation
% 0.20/0.61 % can be quite easily found. This version has only the necessary
% 0.20/0.61 % axioms.
% 0.20/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(cls_conjecture_4,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 c_Tarski_OisLub(v_S,v_cl,v_L,t_a) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(cls_conjecture_6,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 c_in(v_x,v_S,t_a) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(cls_conjecture_7,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.62 ~ c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(cls_Tarski_O_91_124_AisLub_AS1_Acl_AL1_59_Ay1_A_58_AS1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_A_Iy1_M_AL1_J_A_58_Ar_A_61_61_ATrue_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ( ~ c_Tarski_OisLub(V_S,v_cl,V_L,t_a)
% 0.20/0.62 | ~ c_in(V_y,V_S,t_a)
% 0.20/0.62 | c_in(c_Pair(V_y,V_L,t_a,t_a),v_r,tc_prod(t_a,t_a)) ) ).
% 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:4(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.62 %VarNum:6(SingletonVarNum:3)
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.62 %SharedTerms:11
% 0.20/0.62 %goalClause: 1 2 3
% 0.20/0.62 %singleGoalClaCount:3
% 0.20/0.62 [1]P1(a1,a2,a3)
% 0.20/0.62 [2]P2(a2,a7,a5,a3)
% 0.20/0.62 [3]~P1(f4(a1,a5,a3,a3),a8,f6(a3,a3))
% 0.20/0.62 [4]~P1(x41,x43,a3)+~P2(x43,a7,x42,a3)+P1(f4(x41,x42,a3,a3),a8,f6(a3,a3))
% 0.20/0.62 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(5,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 ($false),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,3,4]),
% 0.20/0.62 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------