TSTP Solution File: SYN005-1.010 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : SYN005-1.010 : 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 : n015.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 : Fri Sep 1 01:43:39 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
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SYN005-1.010 : 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
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Aug 26 21:10:53 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.60 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.60 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.60 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.60 % File : SYN005-1.010 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.20/0.60 % Domain : Syntactic
% 0.20/0.60 % Problem : Disjunctions that form a contradiction
% 0.20/0.60 % Version : Biased.
% 0.20/0.60 % English : ~p1(X1,X2) v ~p2(X2,X3) v ... v ~p10(X10,X1).
% 0.20/0.60 % p1(a,a) p2(a,a) ... p10(a,a)
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 % Refs : [Pla82] Plaisted (1982), A Simplified Problem Reduction Format
% 0.20/0.60 % Source : [Pla82]
% 0.20/0.60 % Names : Problem 5.4 [Pla82]
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.60 % Rating : 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.20/0.60 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 11 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% 0.20/0.60 % Number of literals : 20 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% 0.20/0.60 % Maximal clause size : 10 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.60 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.60 % Number of predicates : 10 ( 10 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.60 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.60 % Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.20/0.60 % SPC : CNF_UNS_EPR_NEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 % Comments : "On this example locking resolution (even with a bad choice
% 0.20/0.60 % of indices) and SL-resolution generate search spaces of size
% 0.20/0.60 % polynomial in n, but positive unit resolution, all-negative
% 0.20/0.60 % resolution, set-of-support strategy, ancestry-filter form,
% 0.20/0.60 % and input resolution all generate search spaces of size
% 0.20/0.60 % exponential in n." [Pla82] p.244.
% 0.20/0.60 % : tptp2X: -f tptp -s10 SYN005-1.g
% 0.20/0.60 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(disjunction,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 ( ~ p_1(X1,X2)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_2(X2,X3)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_3(X3,X4)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_4(X4,X5)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_5(X5,X6)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_6(X6,X7)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_7(X7,X8)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_8(X8,X9)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_9(X9,X10)
% 0.20/0.60 | ~ p_10(X10,X1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_1,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 p_1(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_2,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 p_2(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_3,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 p_3(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_4,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 p_4(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_5,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.60 p_5(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 cnf(p_6,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 p_6(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(p_7,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 p_7(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(p_8,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 p_8(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(p_9,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 p_9(a,a) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(p_10,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 p_10(a,a) ).
% 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:11(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.61 %VarNum:20(SingletonVarNum:10)
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxLitNum:10
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.61 %SharedTerms:11
% 0.20/0.61 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
% 0.20/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:10
% 0.20/0.61 [1]P1(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [2]P2(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [3]P4(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [4]P5(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [5]P6(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [6]P7(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [7]P8(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [8]P9(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [9]P10(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [10]P3(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.61 [11]~P3(x1110,x111)+~P1(x111,x112)+~P2(x112,x113)+~P4(x113,x114)+~P5(x114,x115)+~P6(x115,x116)+~P7(x116,x117)+~P8(x117,x118)+~P9(x118,x119)+~P10(x119,x1110)
% 0.20/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(12,plain,
% 0.20/0.61 ($false),
% 0.20/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11]),
% 0.20/0.61 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.61 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------