TSTP Solution File: SEU149+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : SEU149+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n003.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 16:17:52 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 2.74s 2.81s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.74s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SEU149+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n003.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 : Wed Aug 23 20:06:22 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 2.74/2.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.80 % File :CSE---1.6
% 2.74/2.80 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 2.74/2.80 % Transform :cnf
% 2.74/2.80 % Format :tptp:raw
% 2.74/2.80 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 2.74/2.80
% 2.74/2.80 % Result :Theorem 2.190000s
% 2.74/2.80 % Output :CNFRefutation 2.190000s
% 2.74/2.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 % File : SEU149+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 2.74/2.81 % Domain : Set theory
% 2.74/2.81 % Problem : MPTP bushy problem t8_zfmisc_1
% 2.74/2.81 % Version : [Urb07] axioms : Especial.
% 2.74/2.81 % English :
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 % Refs : [Ban01] Bancerek et al. (2001), On the Characterizations of Co
% 2.74/2.81 % : [Urb07] Urban (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 2.74/2.81 % Source : [Urb07]
% 2.74/2.81 % Names : bushy-t8_zfmisc_1 [Urb07]
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 % Status : Theorem
% 2.74/2.81 % Rating : 0.14 v7.5.0, 0.16 v7.4.0, 0.03 v7.3.0, 0.07 v7.1.0, 0.09 v7.0.0, 0.03 v6.4.0, 0.08 v6.2.0, 0.20 v6.1.0, 0.23 v6.0.0, 0.22 v5.5.0, 0.15 v5.4.0, 0.18 v5.3.0, 0.22 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.0.0, 0.17 v4.1.0, 0.13 v4.0.1, 0.17 v4.0.0, 0.21 v3.7.0, 0.15 v3.5.0, 0.16 v3.3.0
% 2.74/2.81 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% 2.74/2.81 % Number of atoms : 14 ( 8 equ)
% 2.74/2.81 % Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% 2.74/2.81 % Number of connectives : 8 ( 1 ~; 1 |; 0 &)
% 2.74/2.81 % ( 4 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 2.74/2.81 % Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% 2.74/2.81 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 2.74/2.81 % Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% 2.74/2.81 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 con; 1-2 aty)
% 2.74/2.81 % Number of variables : 14 ( 14 !; 0 ?)
% 2.74/2.81 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_SEQ
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 % Comments : Translated by MPTP 0.2 from the original problem in the Mizar
% 2.74/2.81 % library, www.mizar.org
% 2.74/2.81 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 fof(antisymmetry_r2_hidden,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 ! [A,B] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( in(A,B)
% 2.74/2.81 => ~ in(B,A) ) ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(commutativity_k2_tarski,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 ! [A,B] : unordered_pair(A,B) = unordered_pair(B,A) ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(d1_tarski,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 ! [A,B] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( B = singleton(A)
% 2.74/2.81 <=> ! [C] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( in(C,B)
% 2.74/2.81 <=> C = A ) ) ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(d2_tarski,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 ! [A,B,C] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( C = unordered_pair(A,B)
% 2.74/2.81 <=> ! [D] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( in(D,C)
% 2.74/2.81 <=> ( D = A
% 2.74/2.81 | D = B ) ) ) ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(dt_k1_tarski,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 $true ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(dt_k2_tarski,axiom,
% 2.74/2.81 $true ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 fof(t8_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
% 2.74/2.81 ! [A,B,C] :
% 2.74/2.81 ( singleton(A) = unordered_pair(B,C)
% 2.74/2.81 => A = B ) ).
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 %-------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 % Proof found
% 2.74/2.81 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 2.74/2.81 % SZS output start Proof
% 2.74/2.81 %ClaNum:27(EqnAxiom:13)
% 2.74/2.81 %VarNum:96(SingletonVarNum:35)
% 2.74/2.81 %MaxLitNum:4
% 2.74/2.81 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 2.74/2.81 %SharedTerms:7
% 2.74/2.81 %goalClause: 14 16
% 2.74/2.81 %singleGoalClaCount:2
% 2.74/2.81 [16]~E(a1,a2)
% 2.74/2.81 [14]E(f6(a1,a5),f7(a2))
% 2.74/2.81 [15]E(f6(x151,x152),f6(x152,x151))
% 2.74/2.81 [21]~P1(x212,x211)+~P1(x211,x212)
% 2.74/2.81 [23]E(f3(x232,x231),x232)+P1(f3(x232,x231),x231)+E(x231,f7(x232))
% 2.74/2.81 [24]~E(f3(x242,x241),x242)+~P1(f3(x242,x241),x241)+E(x241,f7(x242))
% 2.74/2.81 [17]P1(x171,x172)+~E(x171,x173)+~E(x172,f7(x173))
% 2.74/2.81 [18]~P1(x181,x183)+E(x181,x182)+~E(x183,f7(x182))
% 2.74/2.81 [26]~E(f4(x262,x263,x261),x263)+~P1(f4(x262,x263,x261),x261)+E(x261,f6(x262,x263))
% 2.74/2.81 [27]~E(f4(x272,x273,x271),x272)+~P1(f4(x272,x273,x271),x271)+E(x271,f6(x272,x273))
% 2.74/2.81 [19]P1(x191,x192)+~E(x191,x193)+~E(x192,f6(x194,x193))
% 2.74/2.81 [20]P1(x201,x202)+~E(x201,x203)+~E(x202,f6(x203,x204))
% 2.74/2.81 [25]E(f4(x252,x253,x251),x253)+E(f4(x252,x253,x251),x252)+P1(f4(x252,x253,x251),x251)+E(x251,f6(x252,x253))
% 2.74/2.81 [22]~P1(x221,x224)+E(x221,x222)+E(x221,x223)+~E(x224,f6(x223,x222))
% 2.74/2.81 %EqnAxiom
% 2.74/2.81 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 2.74/2.81 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 2.74/2.81 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 2.74/2.81 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f6(x41,x43),f6(x42,x43))
% 2.74/2.81 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f6(x53,x51),f6(x53,x52))
% 2.74/2.81 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f7(x61),f7(x62))
% 2.74/2.81 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f4(x71,x73,x74),f4(x72,x73,x74))
% 2.74/2.81 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f4(x83,x81,x84),f4(x83,x82,x84))
% 2.74/2.81 [9]~E(x91,x92)+E(f4(x93,x94,x91),f4(x93,x94,x92))
% 2.74/2.81 [10]~E(x101,x102)+E(f3(x101,x103),f3(x102,x103))
% 2.74/2.81 [11]~E(x111,x112)+E(f3(x113,x111),f3(x113,x112))
% 2.74/2.81 [12]P1(x122,x123)+~E(x121,x122)+~P1(x121,x123)
% 2.74/2.81 [13]P1(x133,x132)+~E(x131,x132)+~P1(x133,x131)
% 2.74/2.81
% 2.74/2.81 %-------------------------------------------
% 2.74/2.81 cnf(30,plain,
% 2.74/2.81 (E(f6(x301,x302),f6(x302,x301))),
% 2.74/2.81 inference(rename_variables,[],[15])).
% 2.74/2.81 cnf(32,plain,
% 2.74/2.81 (E(f6(x321,x322),f6(x322,x321))),
% 2.74/2.81 inference(rename_variables,[],[15])).
% 2.74/2.81 cnf(35,plain,
% 2.74/2.81 (E(f6(x351,x352),f6(x352,x351))),
% 2.74/2.81 inference(rename_variables,[],[15])).
% 2.74/2.81 cnf(41,plain,
% 2.74/2.81 (~P1(a1,f6(a5,a1))),
% 2.74/2.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[14,16,15,30,32,35,2,3,20,19,18,21,13])).
% 2.74/2.82 cnf(918,plain,
% 2.74/2.82 ($false),
% 2.74/2.82 inference(scs_inference,[],[41,15,20]),
% 2.74/2.82 ['proof']).
% 2.74/2.82 % SZS output end Proof
% 2.74/2.82 % Total time :2.190000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------