TSTP Solution File: LCL043-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL043-1 : 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 : 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 06:47:46 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.65s 0.88s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.65s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : LCL043-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Fri Aug 25 07:37:17 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.60 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.65/0.88 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.65/0.88 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.65/0.88 % Transform :cnf
% 0.65/0.88 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.65/0.88 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 % Result :Theorem 0.230000s
% 0.65/0.88 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.230000s
% 0.65/0.88 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 % File : LCL043-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.65/0.88 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Implication/Negation 2 valued sentential)
% 0.65/0.88 % Problem : CN-39 depends on Hilbert's system
% 0.65/0.88 % Version : [McC92] axioms.
% 0.65/0.88 % English : Two axiomatisations of the Implication/Negation 2 valued
% 0.65/0.88 % sentential calculus are {CN-18,CN-21,CN-35,CN-39,CN-39,
% 0.65/0.88 % CN-40,CN-46} by Frege and {CN-3,CN-18,CN-21,CN-22,CN-30,
% 0.65/0.88 % CN-54} by Hilbert. Show that CN-39 depends on the simplified
% 0.65/0.88 % Hilbert system (without CN-30).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 % Refs : [MW92] McCune & Wos (1992), Experiments in Automated Deductio
% 0.65/0.88 % : [McC92] McCune (1992), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.65/0.88 % Source : [McC92]
% 0.65/0.88 % Names : CN-4 [MW92]
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.65/0.88 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.1.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.65/0.88 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 7 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 0.65/0.88 % Number of literals : 9 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 0.65/0.88 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.65/0.88 % Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% 0.65/0.88 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.65/0.88 % Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.65/0.88 % Number of variables : 14 ( 2 sgn)
% 0.65/0.88 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 % Comments :
% 0.65/0.88 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 ( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X,Y))
% 0.65/0.88 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 0.65/0.88 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(cn_3,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 is_a_theorem(implies(X,implies(not(X),Y))) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(cn_18,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 is_a_theorem(implies(X,implies(Y,X))) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(cn_21,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X,implies(Y,Z)),implies(Y,implies(X,Z)))) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(cn_22,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(Y,Z),implies(implies(X,Y),implies(X,Z)))) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(cn_54,axiom,
% 0.65/0.88 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X,Y),implies(implies(not(X),Y),Y))) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 cnf(prove_cn_39,negated_conjecture,
% 0.65/0.88 ~ is_a_theorem(implies(not(not(a)),a)) ).
% 0.65/0.88
% 0.65/0.88 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.88 % Proof found
% 0.65/0.88 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.65/0.88 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.65/0.89 %ClaNum:7(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.65/0.89 %VarNum:27(SingletonVarNum:14)
% 0.65/0.89 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.65/0.89 %MaxfuncDepth:4
% 0.65/0.89 %SharedTerms:5
% 0.65/0.89 %goalClause: 6
% 0.65/0.89 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.65/0.89 [6]~P1(f1(f3(f3(a2)),a2))
% 0.65/0.89 [1]P1(f1(x11,f1(x12,x11)))
% 0.65/0.89 [2]P1(f1(x21,f1(f3(x21),x22)))
% 0.65/0.89 [3]P1(f1(f1(x31,x32),f1(f1(f3(x31),x32),x32)))
% 0.65/0.89 [4]P1(f1(f1(x41,x42),f1(f1(x43,x41),f1(x43,x42))))
% 0.65/0.89 [5]P1(f1(f1(x51,f1(x52,x53)),f1(x52,f1(x51,x53))))
% 0.65/0.89 [7]P1(x71)+~P1(x72)+~P1(f1(x72,x71))
% 0.65/0.89 %EqnAxiom
% 0.65/0.89
% 0.65/0.89 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.89 cnf(186,plain,
% 0.65/0.89 (P1(f1(f1(f3(x1861),f1(x1862,x1861)),f1(x1862,x1861)))),
% 0.65/0.89 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,7])).
% 0.65/0.89 cnf(191,plain,
% 0.65/0.89 ($false),
% 0.65/0.89 inference(scs_inference,[],[186,6,2,7]),
% 0.65/0.89 ['proof']).
% 0.65/0.89 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.65/0.89 % Total time :0.230000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------