%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : COL050-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n007.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 : Mon Jun 24 04:44:55 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.54s 0.60s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.54s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.12 % Problem : COL050-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 0.11/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Tue Jun 18 15:47:39 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.53/0.59 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.59 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.53/0.59 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.53/0.59 % Transform :cnf % 0.53/0.59 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.53/0.59 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.53/0.59 % 0.53/0.59 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.53/0.59 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.53/0.59 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.60 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.60 % File : COL050-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 0.53/0.60 % Domain : Combinatory Logic % 0.54/0.60 % Problem : The Significance of the Mockingbird % 0.54/0.60 % Version : Especial. % 0.54/0.60 % English : There exists a mocking bird. For all birds x and y, there % 0.54/0.60 % exists a bird z that composes x with y for all birds w. Prove % 0.54/0.60 % that every bird is fond of at least one other bird. % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 % Refs : [Smu85] Smullyan (1978), To Mock a Mocking Bird and Other Logi % 0.54/0.60 % Source : [ANL] % 0.54/0.60 % Names : bird1.ver1.in [ANL] % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.54/0.60 % Rating : 0.09 v8.2.0, 0.08 v8.1.0, 0.10 v7.5.0, 0.08 v7.4.0, 0.13 v7.3.0, 0.11 v7.1.0, 0.06 v7.0.0, 0.00 v6.4.0, 0.05 v6.3.0, 0.06 v6.2.0, 0.07 v6.1.0, 0.00 v6.0.0, 0.10 v5.5.0, 0.05 v5.4.0, 0.00 v5.1.0, 0.07 v5.0.0, 0.00 v2.0.0 % 0.54/0.60 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 3 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 1 RR) % 0.54/0.60 % Number of literals : 3 ( 3 equ; 1 neg) % 0.54/0.60 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.54/0.60 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.54/0.60 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 0 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty) % 0.54/0.60 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty) % 0.54/0.60 % Number of variables : 5 ( 0 sgn) % 0.54/0.60 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_PEQ_UEQ % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 % Comments : % 0.54/0.60 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.60 %---- There exists a mocking bird (Mock). % 0.54/0.60 %---- TEx FAy [response(x,y) = response(y,y)]. % 0.54/0.60 %---- response(Mock,y) = response(y,y). % 0.54/0.60 cnf(mocking_bird_exists,axiom, % 0.54/0.60 response(mocking_bird,Y) = response(Y,Y) ). % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 %---- For all birds x and y, there exists a bird z that composes % 0.54/0.60 %---- x with y for all birds w. % 0.54/0.60 %---- FAx FAy TEz FAw [response(z,w) = response(x,response(y,w))] % 0.54/0.60 %---- response(comp(x,y),w) = response(x,response(y,w)). % 0.54/0.60 cnf(composer_exists,hypothesis, % 0.54/0.60 response(compose(X,Y),W) = response(X,response(Y,W)) ). % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 %---- Hypothesis: Every bird is fond of at least one other bird. % 0.54/0.60 %---- -FAx TEy [response(x,y) = y]. % 0.54/0.60 %---- TEx FAy -[response(x,y) = y]. % 0.54/0.60 %---- Letting A = x, % 0.54/0.60 %---- -[response(A,y) = y]. % 0.54/0.60 cnf(prove_all_fond_of_another,negated_conjecture, % 0.54/0.60 response(a,Y) != Y ). % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.60 % Proof found % 0.54/0.60 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.54/0.60 % SZS output start Proof % 0.54/0.60 %ClaNum:10(EqnAxiom:7) % 0.54/0.60 %VarNum:11(SingletonVarNum:5) % 0.54/0.60 %MaxLitNum:1 % 0.54/0.60 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 0.54/0.60 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.54/0.60 %goalClause: 10 % 0.54/0.60 %singleGoalClaCount:1 % 0.54/0.60 [8]E(f4(a1,x81),f4(x81,x81)) % 0.54/0.60 [10]~E(f4(a3,x101),x101) % 0.54/0.60 [9]E(f4(f2(x91,x92),x93),f4(x91,f4(x92,x93))) % 0.54/0.60 %EqnAxiom % 0.54/0.60 [1]E(x11,x11) % 0.54/0.60 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22) % 0.54/0.60 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33) % 0.54/0.60 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f4(x41,x43),f4(x42,x43)) % 0.54/0.60 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f4(x53,x51),f4(x53,x52)) % 0.54/0.60 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f2(x61,x63),f2(x62,x63)) % 0.54/0.60 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f2(x73,x71),f2(x73,x72)) % 0.54/0.60 % 0.54/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.60 cnf(11,plain, % 0.54/0.60 (E(f4(x111,x111),f4(a1,x111))), % 0.54/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[8,2])). % 0.54/0.60 cnf(15,plain, % 0.54/0.60 ($false), % 0.54/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,11,9,2,3]), % 0.54/0.60 ['proof']). % 0.54/0.60 % SZS output end Proof % 0.54/0.60 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------