TSTP Solution File: LAT279-2 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LAT279-2 : 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 : n015.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 05:58:00 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : LAT279-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n015.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 04:40:05 EDT 2023
% 0.20/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File : LAT279-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.20/0.63 % Domain : Analysis
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem : Problem about Tarski's fixed point theorem
% 0.20/0.63 % Version : [Pau06] axioms : Reduced > Especial.
% 0.20/0.63 % English :
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Refs : [Pau06] Paulson (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.63 % Source : [Pau06]
% 0.20/0.63 % Names :
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v4.1.0, 0.11 v4.0.1, 0.17 v3.3.0, 0.14 v3.2.0
% 0.20/0.63 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of literals : 5 ( 1 equ; 2 neg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of variables : 2 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.20/0.63 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_SEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Comments : The problems in the [Pau06] collection each have very many axioms,
% 0.20/0.63 % of which only a small selection are required for the refutation.
% 0.20/0.63 % The mission is to find those few axioms, after which a refutation
% 0.20/0.63 % can be quite easily found. This version has only the necessary
% 0.20/0.63 % axioms.
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 ~ c_Relation_Oantisym(v_r,t_a) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_Tarski_OPartialOrder__iff_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ( ~ c_in(V_P,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit))
% 0.20/0.63 | c_Relation_Oantisym(c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(V_P,T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),T_a) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_Tarski_Ocl_A_58_APartialOrder_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 c_in(v_cl,c_Tarski_OPartialOrder,tc_Tarski_Opotype_Opotype__ext__type(t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit)) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_Tarski_Or_A_61_61_Aorder_Acl_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 v_r = c_Tarski_Opotype_Oorder(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.64 %ClaNum:17(EqnAxiom:13)
% 0.20/0.64 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:2)
% 0.20/0.64 %MaxLitNum:2
% 0.20/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.64 %SharedTerms:10
% 0.20/0.64 %goalClause: 16
% 0.20/0.64 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.20/0.64 [16]~P2(a7,a2)
% 0.20/0.64 [14]E(f3(a1,a2,a5),a7)
% 0.20/0.64 [15]P1(a1,a4,f6(a2,a5))
% 0.20/0.64 [17]P2(f3(x171,x172,a5),x172)+~P1(x171,a4,f6(x172,a5))
% 0.20/0.64 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.64 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.20/0.64 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.20/0.64 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.20/0.64 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41,x43,x44),f3(x42,x43,x44))
% 0.20/0.64 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x53,x51,x54),f3(x53,x52,x54))
% 0.20/0.64 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f3(x63,x64,x61),f3(x63,x64,x62))
% 0.20/0.64 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f6(x71,x73),f6(x72,x73))
% 0.20/0.64 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f6(x83,x81),f6(x83,x82))
% 0.20/0.64 [9]P1(x92,x93,x94)+~E(x91,x92)+~P1(x91,x93,x94)
% 0.20/0.64 [10]P1(x103,x102,x104)+~E(x101,x102)+~P1(x103,x101,x104)
% 0.20/0.64 [11]P1(x113,x114,x112)+~E(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x114,x111)
% 0.20/0.64 [12]P2(x122,x123)+~E(x121,x122)+~P2(x121,x123)
% 0.20/0.64 [13]P2(x133,x132)+~E(x131,x132)+~P2(x133,x131)
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 ($false),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[16,15,14,2,17,12]),
% 0.20/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------