TSTP Solution File: LCL398-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : LCL398-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n005.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 06:49:08 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : LCL398-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.3.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n005.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
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 18:41:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.61 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File : LCL398-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.3.0.
% 0.20/0.61 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Implication/Negation 2 valued sentential)
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem : CN-64 depends on the Lukasiewicz system
% 0.20/0.61 % Version : [McC92] axioms.
% 0.20/0.61 % English : An axiomatisation of the Implication/Negation 2 valued
% 0.20/0.61 % sentential calculus is {CN-1,CN-2,CN-3} by Lukasiewicz.
% 0.20/0.61 % Show that CN-64 depends on the Lukasiewicz system.
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Refs : [Wos96] Wos (1996), Combining Resonance with Heat
% 0.20/0.61 % : [McC92] McCune (1992), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.61 % Source : [Wos96]
% 0.20/0.61 % Names : thesis_64 [Wos96]
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v5.5.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.3.0
% 0.20/0.61 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 5 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of literals : 7 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of variables : 8 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.20/0.61 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Comments :
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 0.20/0.61 ( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X,Y))
% 0.20/0.61 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 0.20/0.61 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(cn_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.61 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X,Y),implies(implies(Y,Z),implies(X,Z)))) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(cn_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.61 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(not(X),X),X)) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(cn_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.61 is_a_theorem(implies(X,implies(not(X),Y))) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(prove_cn_64,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 ~ is_a_theorem(implies(not(implies(x,x)),y)) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.61 %ClaNum:5(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.61 %VarNum:16(SingletonVarNum:8)
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:3
% 0.20/0.61 %SharedTerms:6
% 0.20/0.61 %goalClause: 4
% 0.20/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.20/0.61 [4]~P1(f2(f1(f2(a3,a3)),a4))
% 0.20/0.61 [2]P1(f2(f2(f1(x21),x21),x21))
% 0.20/0.61 [1]P1(f2(x11,f2(f1(x11),x12)))
% 0.20/0.61 [3]P1(f2(f2(x31,x32),f2(f2(x32,x33),f2(x31,x33))))
% 0.20/0.61 [5]P1(x51)+~P1(x52)+~P1(f2(x52,x51))
% 0.20/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(6,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (~P1(f2(a3,a3))),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,1,5])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(8,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 (~P1(f2(f2(f2(f1(x81),x81),x81),f2(a3,a3)))),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,6,5])).
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(9,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 ($false),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,8,5]),
% 0.20/0.62 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------