%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : COL058-1 : 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 : n026.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 04:44:57 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 116.23s 116.32s % Output : CNFRefutation 116.27s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.08/0.13 % Problem : COL058-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 0.08/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Tue Jun 18 16:16:24 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.21/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark % 116.20/116.28 %------------------------------------------- % 116.20/116.28 % File :CSE---1.7 % 116.20/116.28 % Problem :theBenchmark % 116.20/116.28 % Transform :cnf % 116.20/116.28 % Format :tptp:raw % 116.20/116.28 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 116.20/116.28 % 116.20/116.28 % Result :Theorem 115.600000s % 116.20/116.28 % Output :CNFRefutation 115.600000s % 116.20/116.28 %------------------------------------------- % 116.23/116.32 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 116.23/116.32 % File : COL058-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.0.0. % 116.23/116.32 % Domain : Combinatory Logic % 116.23/116.32 % Problem : If there's a lark, then there's an egocentric bird. % 116.23/116.32 % Version : Especial. % 116.23/116.32 % English : Suppose we are given a forest that conrtains a lark, and % 116.23/116.32 % we are not given any other information. Prove that at least % 116.23/116.32 % one bird in the forest must be egocentric. % 116.23/116.32 % 116.23/116.32 % Refs : [Smu85] Smullyan (1978), To Mock a Mocking Bird and Other Logi % 116.23/116.32 % : [GO86] Glickfield & Overbeek (1986), A Foray into Combinatory % 116.23/116.32 % Source : [GO86] % 116.23/116.32 % Names : - [GO86] % 116.23/116.32 % 116.23/116.32 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 116.23/116.32 % Rating : 0.05 v8.2.0, 0.08 v8.1.0, 0.15 v7.5.0, 0.12 v7.4.0, 0.17 v7.3.0, 0.11 v7.1.0, 0.06 v7.0.0, 0.00 v6.0.0, 0.05 v5.5.0, 0.00 v2.0.0 % 116.23/116.32 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 2 ( 2 unt; 0 nHn; 1 RR) % 116.23/116.32 % Number of literals : 2 ( 2 equ; 1 neg) % 116.23/116.32 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg) % 116.23/116.32 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg) % 116.23/116.32 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 0 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty) % 116.23/116.32 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty) % 116.23/116.32 % Number of variables : 3 ( 0 sgn) % 116.23/116.32 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_PEQ_UEQ % 116.23/116.32 % 116.23/116.32 % Comments : % 116.23/116.32 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 116.23/116.32 %---- There exists a lark % 116.23/116.32 cnf(lark_exists,axiom, % 116.23/116.32 response(response(lark,X1),X2) = response(X1,response(X2,X2)) ). % 116.23/116.32 % 116.23/116.32 %---- Hypothesis: There exists a bird x that is fond of itself. % 116.23/116.32 cnf(prove_the_bird_exists,negated_conjecture, % 116.23/116.32 response(X,X) != X ). % 116.23/116.32 % 116.23/116.32 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 116.23/116.32 %------------------------------------------- % 116.23/116.32 % Proof found % 116.23/116.32 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 116.23/116.32 % SZS output start Proof % 116.27/116.35 %ClaNum:7(EqnAxiom:5) % 116.27/116.35 %VarNum:8(SingletonVarNum:3) % 116.27/116.35 %MaxLitNum:1 % 116.27/116.35 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 116.27/116.35 %SharedTerms:1 % 116.27/116.35 %goalClause: 7 % 116.27/116.35 %singleGoalClaCount:1 % 116.27/116.35 [7]~E(f2(x71,x71),x71) % 116.27/116.35 [6]E(f2(f2(a1,x61),x62),f2(x61,f2(x62,x62))) % 116.27/116.35 %EqnAxiom % 116.27/116.35 [1]E(x11,x11) % 116.27/116.35 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22) % 116.27/116.35 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33) % 116.27/116.35 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f2(x41,x43),f2(x42,x43)) % 116.27/116.35 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f2(x53,x51),f2(x53,x52)) % 116.27/116.35 % 116.27/116.35 %------------------------------------------- % 116.27/116.38 cnf(8,plain, % 116.27/116.38 (E(f2(x81,f2(x82,x82)),f2(f2(a1,x81),x82))), % 116.27/116.38 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,2])). % 116.27/116.38 cnf(9,plain, % 116.27/116.38 (~E(x91,f2(x91,x91))), % 116.27/116.38 inference(scs_inference,[],[7,2])). % 116.27/116.38 cnf(10,plain, % 116.27/116.38 (~E(f2(x101,f2(f2(a1,x101),f2(a1,x101))),f2(a1,x101))), % 116.27/116.38 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,7,2,3])). % 116.27/116.38 cnf(18,plain, % 116.27/116.38 (~E(x181,f2(a1,f2(x181,x181)))), % 116.27/116.38 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,9,10,5,3,4])). % 116.27/116.38 cnf(20,plain, % 116.27/116.38 (~E(x201,f2(a1,f2(x201,x201)))), % 116.27/116.38 inference(rename_variables,[],[18])). % 116.27/116.38 cnf(23,plain, % 116.27/116.38 ($false), % 116.27/116.38 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,18,20,8,5,3,2]), % 116.27/116.38 ['proof']). % 116.27/116.38 % SZS output end Proof % 116.27/116.38 % Total time :115.600000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------