%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : COL052-1 : 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 : n006.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 04:44:56 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 58.60s 58.70s % Output : CNFRefutation 58.60s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.13 % Problem : COL052-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 0.07/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n006.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 : Tue Jun 18 15:42:54 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.43/0.59 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.53/58.68 %------------------------------------------- % 58.53/58.68 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.53/58.68 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.53/58.68 % Transform :cnf % 58.53/58.68 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.53/58.68 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.53/58.68 % 58.53/58.68 % Result :Theorem 58.010000s % 58.53/58.68 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.010000s % 58.53/58.68 %------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.70 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.70 % File : COL052-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 58.60/58.70 % Domain : Combinatory Logic % 58.60/58.70 % Problem : A Question on Agreeable Birds % 58.60/58.70 % Version : Especial. % 58.60/58.70 % Theorem formulation : Implicit definition of agreeable. % 58.60/58.70 % English : For all birds x and y, there exists a bird z that composes % 58.60/58.70 % x with y for all birds w. Prove that if C is agreeable then % 58.60/58.70 % A is agreeable. % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 % Refs : [Smu85] Smullyan (1978), To Mock a Mocking Bird and Other Logi % 58.60/58.70 % Source : [ANL] % 58.60/58.70 % Names : bird4.ver1.in [ANL] % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 58.60/58.70 % Rating : 0.09 v8.2.0, 0.17 v8.1.0, 0.20 v7.5.0, 0.21 v7.4.0, 0.26 v7.3.0, 0.16 v7.1.0, 0.06 v7.0.0, 0.05 v6.4.0, 0.16 v6.3.0, 0.06 v6.2.0, 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 v4.0.1, 0.07 v4.0.0, 0.08 v3.7.0, 0.00 v2.0.0 % 58.60/58.70 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR) % 58.60/58.70 % Number of literals : 4 ( 4 equ; 1 neg) % 58.60/58.70 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.60/58.70 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg) % 58.60/58.70 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 0 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty) % 58.60/58.70 % Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty) % 58.60/58.70 % Number of variables : 5 ( 0 sgn) % 58.60/58.70 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_PEQ_UEQ % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 % Comments : % 58.60/58.70 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.70 %----For all birds x and y, there exists a bird z that composes x with % 58.60/58.70 %----y for all birds w. % 58.60/58.70 %---- FAx FAy TEz FAw [response(z,w) = response(x,response(y,w))]. % 58.60/58.70 %---- response(comp(x,y),w) = response(x,response(y,w)). % 58.60/58.70 cnf(composer_exists,axiom, % 58.60/58.70 response(compose(X,Y),W) = response(X,response(Y,W)) ). % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 %----Hypothesis: If C is agreeable then A is agreeable. % 58.60/58.70 %---- -[ If FAx TEy (response(C,y) = response(x,y)), % 58.60/58.70 %---- then FAw TEv (response(A,v) = response(w,v)) ]. % 58.60/58.70 %---- -[ TEx FAy -(response(C,y) = response(x,y)) | % 58.60/58.70 %---- FAw TEv (response(A,v) = response(w,v)) ]. % 58.60/58.70 %---- FAx TEy (response(C,y) = response(x,y)) and % 58.60/58.70 %---- TEw FAv -(response(A,v) = response(w,v). % 58.60/58.70 %---- response(C,commom_bird(x)) = response(x,common_bird(x)) and % 58.60/58.70 %---- -(response(A,v) = response(odd_bird,v)). % 58.60/58.70 cnf(agreeable1,hypothesis, % 58.60/58.70 response(c,common_bird(X)) = response(X,common_bird(X)) ). % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 cnf(prove_a_is_agreeable,negated_conjecture, % 58.60/58.70 response(a,V) != response(odd_bird,V) ). % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 %----C composes A with B. WHY is this here? % 58.60/58.70 cnf(c_composes_a_with_b,hypothesis, % 58.60/58.70 c = compose(a,b) ). % 58.60/58.70 % 58.60/58.70 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.70 %------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.70 % Proof found % 58.60/58.70 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.60/58.70 % SZS output start Proof % 58.60/58.71 %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:8) % 58.60/58.71 %VarNum:11(SingletonVarNum:5) % 58.60/58.71 %MaxLitNum:1 % 58.60/58.71 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 58.60/58.71 %SharedTerms:6 % 58.60/58.71 %goalClause: 12 % 58.60/58.71 %singleGoalClaCount:1 % 58.60/58.71 [9]E(f3(a1,a2),a4) % 58.60/58.71 [12]~E(f6(a7,x121),f6(a1,x121)) % 58.60/58.71 [10]E(f6(a4,f5(x101)),f6(x101,f5(x101))) % 58.60/58.71 [11]E(f6(f3(x111,x112),x113),f6(x111,f6(x112,x113))) % 58.60/58.71 %EqnAxiom % 58.60/58.71 [1]E(x11,x11) % 58.60/58.71 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22) % 58.60/58.71 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33) % 58.60/58.71 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41,x43),f3(x42,x43)) % 58.60/58.71 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x53,x51),f3(x53,x52)) % 58.60/58.71 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f5(x61),f5(x62)) % 58.60/58.71 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f6(x71,x73),f6(x72,x73)) % 58.60/58.71 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f6(x83,x81),f6(x83,x82)) % 58.60/58.71 % 58.60/58.71 %------------------------------------------- % 58.60/58.72 cnf(13,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(f6(x131,f6(x132,x133)),f6(f3(x131,x132),x133))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,2])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(14,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(a7,a1)), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,11,2,7])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(15,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(a7,f6(x151,x152)),f6(f3(a1,x151),x152))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,11,2,7,3])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(18,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(f6(x181,f5(x181)),f6(a4,f5(x181)))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,2])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(19,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(a7,f5(a1)),f6(a4,f5(a1)))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,10,2,3])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(23,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(a4,f3(a1,a2))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,2])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(28,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(f6(x281,f3(a1,a2)),f6(x281,a4))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,6,4,5,8])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(29,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(f6(f3(a1,a2),x291),f6(a4,x291))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,6,4,5,8,7])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(31,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(f3(a7,x311),x312),f6(f3(a1,x311),x312))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,14,13,15,6,4,5,8,7,2,3])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(38,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (E(f6(a4,x381),f6(f3(a1,a2),x381))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,6,4,8,5,7])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(42,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(a7,f5(a1)),f6(f3(a1,a2),f5(a1)))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[29,19,2,3])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(44,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(f3(a1,x441),x442),f6(f3(a7,x441),x442))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[31,2])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(49,plain, % 58.60/58.72 (~E(f6(f3(a1,x491),a4),f6(f3(a7,x491),f3(a1,a2)))), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,42,44,2,3])). % 58.60/58.72 cnf(53,plain, % 58.60/58.72 ($false), % 58.60/58.72 inference(scs_inference,[],[38,18,49,31,2,3]), % 58.60/58.72 ['proof']). % 58.60/58.72 % SZS output end Proof % 58.60/58.72 % Total time :58.010000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------