TSTP Solution File: LCL194-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL194-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n012.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 06:48:22 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.91s 0.99s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.91s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : LCL194-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n012.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 03:31:27 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.54 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.91/0.98 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.98 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.91/0.98 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.91/0.98 % Transform :cnf
% 0.91/0.98 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.91/0.98 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.91/0.98
% 0.91/0.98 % Result :Theorem 0.380000s
% 0.91/0.98 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.380000s
% 0.91/0.98 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.98 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.98 % File : LCL194-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.91/0.98 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Propositional)
% 0.91/0.98 % Problem : Principia Mathematica 2.37
% 0.91/0.98 % Version : [WR27] axioms : Reduced & Augmented.
% 0.91/0.98 % English :
% 0.91/0.98
% 0.91/0.98 % Refs : [WR27] Whitehead & Russell (1927), Principia Mathematica
% 0.91/0.98 % : [NSS63] Newell et al. (1963), Empirical Explorations with the
% 0.91/0.98 % : [ORo89] O'Rourke (1989), LT Revisited: Explanation-Based Learn
% 0.91/0.98 % : [SE94] Segre & Elkan (1994), A High-Performance Explanation-B
% 0.91/0.98 % Source : [SE94]
% 0.91/0.98 % Names : Problem 2.37 [WR27]
% 0.91/0.98
% 0.91/0.98 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.91/0.98 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.07 v6.0.0, 0.11 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.17 v5.3.0, 0.20 v5.2.0, 0.15 v5.1.0, 0.12 v5.0.0, 0.13 v4.0.1, 0.00 v2.5.0, 0.14 v2.4.0, 0.29 v2.3.0, 0.00 v2.2.0, 0.11 v2.1.0, 0.13 v2.0.0
% 0.91/0.98 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% 0.91/0.98 % Number of literals : 14 ( 0 equ; 6 neg)
% 0.91/0.98 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.91/0.98 % Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% 0.91/0.98 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.91/0.98 % Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.91/0.98 % Number of variables : 17 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.91/0.98 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.91/0.98
% 0.91/0.98 % Comments : Reduced to use only or and not, and includes a redundant rule
% 0.91/0.98 % of transitivity of implication, and a reduced rule of
% 0.91/0.98 % detachment.
% 0.91/0.98 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.99 %----Include axioms of propositional logic
% 0.91/0.99 include('Axioms/LCL003-0.ax').
% 0.91/0.99 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
% 0.91/0.99 ~ theorem(or(not(or(not(q),r)),or(not(or(q,p)),or(p,r)))) ).
% 0.91/0.99
% 0.91/0.99 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.99 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.99 % Proof found
% 0.91/0.99 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.91/0.99 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.91/0.99 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.91/0.99 %VarNum:34(SingletonVarNum:17)
% 0.91/0.99 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.91/0.99 %MaxfuncDepth:3
% 0.91/0.99 %SharedTerms:12
% 0.91/0.99 %goalClause: 6
% 0.91/0.99 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.91/0.99 [6]~P2(f2(f1(f2(f1(a3),a5)),f2(f1(f2(a3,a4)),f2(a4,a5))))
% 0.91/0.99 [2]P1(f2(f1(f2(x21,x21)),x21))
% 0.91/0.99 [1]P1(f2(f1(x11),f2(x12,x11)))
% 0.91/0.99 [3]P1(f2(f1(f2(x31,x32)),f2(x32,x31)))
% 0.91/0.99 [4]P1(f2(f1(f2(x41,f2(x42,x43))),f2(x42,f2(x41,x43))))
% 0.91/0.99 [5]P1(f2(f1(f2(f1(x51),x52)),f2(f1(f2(x53,x51)),f2(x53,x52))))
% 0.91/0.99 [7]~P1(x71)+P2(x71)
% 0.91/0.99 [8]P2(x81)+~P2(x82)+~P1(f2(f1(x82),x81))
% 0.91/0.99 [9]~P2(f2(f1(x93),x92))+P2(f2(f1(x91),x92))+~P1(f2(f1(x91),x93))
% 0.91/0.99 %EqnAxiom
% 0.91/0.99
% 0.91/0.99 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(30,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 (P2(f2(f1(x301),f2(x302,x301)))),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,7])).
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(45,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 (P1(f2(f1(f2(f1(x451),x452)),f2(f1(f2(x453,x451)),f2(x453,x452))))),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(rename_variables,[],[5])).
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(47,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 (P2(f2(f1(f2(f1(x471),x472)),f2(f1(f2(x473,x471)),f2(x473,x472))))),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,45,30,8,7])).
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(68,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 (P2(f2(f1(f2(x681,x682)),f2(f1(f2(f1(x682),x683)),f2(x681,x683))))),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,47,8])).
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(252,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 (P2(f2(f1(f2(x2521,x2522)),f2(f1(f2(f1(x2521),x2523)),f2(x2522,x2523))))),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[68,3,9])).
% 0.91/0.99 cnf(582,plain,
% 0.91/0.99 ($false),
% 0.91/0.99 inference(scs_inference,[],[252,6,4,8]),
% 0.91/0.99 ['proof']).
% 0.91/0.99 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.91/0.99 % Total time :0.380000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------