TSTP Solution File: LCL027-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL027-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n026.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 06:47:42 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.89s 0.98s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.89s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : LCL027-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Fri Aug 25 07:14:03 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.59 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.89/0.97 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.97 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.89/0.97 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.89/0.97 % Transform :cnf
% 0.89/0.97 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.89/0.97 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.89/0.97
% 0.89/0.97 % Result :Theorem 0.320000s
% 0.89/0.97 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.320000s
% 0.89/0.97 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.98 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.98 % File : LCL027-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.89/0.98 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Implication/Falsehood 2 valued sentential)
% 0.89/0.98 % Problem : C0-4 depends on the Church system
% 0.89/0.98 % Version : [McC92] axioms.
% 0.89/0.98 % English : Axiomatisations for the Implication/Falsehood 2 valued
% 0.89/0.98 % sentential calculus are {C0-1,C0-2,C0-3,C0-4}
% 0.89/0.98 % by Tarski-Bernays, {C0-2,C0-5,C0-6} by Church, and the single
% 0.89/0.98 % Meredith axioms. Show that C0-4 can be derived from the
% 0.89/0.98 % Church system.
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 % Refs : [MW92] McCune & Wos (1992), Experiments in Automated Deductio
% 0.89/0.98 % : [McC92] McCune (1992), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.89/0.98 % Source : [McC92]
% 0.89/0.98 % Names : C0-39 [MW92]
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.89/0.98 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.08 v5.1.0, 0.06 v5.0.0, 0.00 v2.1.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.89/0.98 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 5 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 0.89/0.98 % Number of literals : 7 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 0.89/0.98 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.89/0.98 % Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% 0.89/0.98 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.89/0.98 % Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.89/0.98 % Number of variables : 8 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.89/0.98 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 % Comments :
% 0.89/0.98 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.98 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 0.89/0.98 ( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X,Y))
% 0.89/0.98 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 0.89/0.98 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 cnf(c0_2,axiom,
% 0.89/0.98 is_a_theorem(implies(X,implies(Y,X))) ).
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 cnf(c0_5,axiom,
% 0.89/0.98 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(implies(X,falsehood),falsehood),X)) ).
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 cnf(c0_6,axiom,
% 0.89/0.98 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X,implies(Y,Z)),implies(implies(X,Y),implies(X,Z)))) ).
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 cnf(prove_c0_4,negated_conjecture,
% 0.89/0.98 ~ is_a_theorem(implies(falsehood,a)) ).
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.98 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.98 % Proof found
% 0.89/0.98 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.89/0.98 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.89/0.98 %ClaNum:5(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.89/0.98 %VarNum:16(SingletonVarNum:8)
% 0.89/0.98 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.89/0.98 %MaxfuncDepth:3
% 0.89/0.98 %SharedTerms:4
% 0.89/0.98 %goalClause: 4
% 0.89/0.98 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.89/0.98 [4]~P1(f1(a2,a3))
% 0.89/0.98 [2]P1(f1(f1(f1(x21,a2),a2),x21))
% 0.89/0.98 [1]P1(f1(x11,f1(x12,x11)))
% 0.89/0.98 [3]P1(f1(f1(x31,f1(x32,x33)),f1(f1(x31,x32),f1(x31,x33))))
% 0.89/0.98 [5]P1(x51)+~P1(x52)+~P1(f1(x52,x51))
% 0.89/0.98 %EqnAxiom
% 0.89/0.98
% 0.89/0.98 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.89/0.99 cnf(111,plain,
% 0.89/0.99 (~P1(f1(f1(x1111,f1(x1112,x1111)),f1(a2,a3)))),
% 0.89/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,1,5])).
% 0.89/0.99 cnf(145,plain,
% 0.89/0.99 (~P1(f1(a2,f1(f1(x1451,a2),a3)))),
% 0.89/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[111,3,5])).
% 0.89/0.99 cnf(155,plain,
% 0.89/0.99 ($false),
% 0.89/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[145,2,1,5]),
% 0.89/0.99 ['proof']).
% 0.89/0.99 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.89/0.99 % Total time :0.320000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------