TSTP Solution File: LCL007-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL007-1 : 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 : n031.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 06:47:38 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.13 % Problem : LCL007-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n031.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
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 19:41:36 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.62 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.19/0.62 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.62 % Transform :cnf
% 0.19/0.62 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.19/0.62 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.19/0.62
% 0.19/0.62 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.19/0.62 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.19/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 % File : LCL007-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.19/0.63 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Equivalential)
% 0.19/0.63 % Problem : EC-2 depends on the Wajsberg system
% 0.19/0.63 % Version : [McC92] axioms.
% 0.19/0.63 % English : Two axiomatisations of the equivalential calculus are
% 0.19/0.63 % {EC-1,EC-2} by Lesniewski, and {EC-4,EC-5} by Wajsburg. Show
% 0.19/0.63 % that EC-2 can be derived from the Wajsburg system.
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 % Refs : [MW92] McCune & Wos (1992), Experiments in Automated Deductio
% 0.19/0.63 % : [McC92] McCune (1992), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.19/0.63 % Source : [McC92]
% 0.19/0.63 % Names : EC-70 [MW92]
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.19/0.63 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 0.19/0.63 % Number of literals : 6 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 0.19/0.63 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.19/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% 0.19/0.63 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.19/0.63 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.19/0.63 % Number of variables : 7 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.19/0.63 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 % Comments :
% 0.19/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 0.19/0.63 ( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X,Y))
% 0.19/0.63 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 0.19/0.63 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 %----Axiom of symmetry
% 0.19/0.63 cnf(ec_4,axiom,
% 0.19/0.63 is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X,Y),equivalent(Y,X))) ).
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 %----Axiom of associativity
% 0.19/0.63 cnf(ec_5,axiom,
% 0.19/0.63 is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X,Y),Z),equivalent(X,equivalent(Y,Z)))) ).
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 cnf(prove_ec_2,negated_conjecture,
% 0.19/0.63 ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(a,equivalent(b,c)),equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c))) ).
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.19/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.19/0.63 %ClaNum:4(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.19/0.63 %VarNum:14(SingletonVarNum:7)
% 0.19/0.63 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.19/0.63 %MaxfuncDepth:3
% 0.19/0.63 %SharedTerms:9
% 0.19/0.63 %goalClause: 3
% 0.19/0.63 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.19/0.63 [3]~P1(f1(f1(a2,f1(a3,a4)),f1(f1(a2,a3),a4)))
% 0.19/0.63 [1]P1(f1(f1(x11,x12),f1(x12,x11)))
% 0.19/0.63 [2]P1(f1(f1(f1(x21,x22),x23),f1(x21,f1(x22,x23))))
% 0.19/0.63 [4]P1(x41)+~P1(x42)+~P1(f1(x42,x41))
% 0.19/0.63 %EqnAxiom
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.63 cnf(5,plain,
% 0.19/0.63 ($false),
% 0.19/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,1,2,4]),
% 0.19/0.63 ['proof']).
% 0.19/0.63 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.19/0.63 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------