%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : COL118-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n025.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 04:45:15 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.44s 0.64s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.58s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : COL118-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % 0.07/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Tue Jun 18 16:02:39 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.36 % CPUTime : % 0.44/0.60 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.44/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.44/0.63 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.44/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.44/0.63 % Transform :cnf % 0.44/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.44/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.44/0.63 % 0.44/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.44/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.44/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.44/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.44/0.63 % File : COL118-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % 0.44/0.63 % Domain : Combinatory Logic % 0.44/0.63 % Problem : Problem about combinators % 0.44/0.63 % Version : [Pau06] axioms : Reduced > Especial. % 0.44/0.63 % English : % 0.44/0.63 % 0.44/0.63 % Refs : [Pau06] Paulson (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.44/0.63 % Source : [Pau06] % 0.44/0.63 % Names : % 0.44/0.63 % 0.44/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.44/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.1.0, 0.06 v5.0.0, 0.07 v4.0.1, 0.14 v3.4.0, 0.00 v3.2.0 % 0.44/0.63 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 5 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR) % 0.44/0.63 % Number of literals : 8 ( 0 equ; 4 neg) % 0.44/0.63 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.44/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.44/0.63 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 3-3 aty) % 0.44/0.63 % Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty) % 0.44/0.63 % Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn) % 0.44/0.63 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN % 0.44/0.63 % 0.44/0.63 % Comments : The problems in the [Pau06] collection each have very many axioms, % 0.44/0.63 % of which only a small selection are required for the refutation. % 0.44/0.63 % The mission is to find those few axioms, after which a refutation % 0.44/0.63 % can be quite easily found. This version has only the necessary % 0.44/0.64 % axioms. % 0.44/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.44/0.64 cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture, % 0.44/0.64 c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_ya,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ). % 0.44/0.64 % 0.44/0.64 cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture, % 0.44/0.64 c_in(c_Pair(v_z,v_w,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ). % 0.44/0.64 % 0.44/0.64 cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture, % 0.44/0.64 ( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_x,v_z),V_U,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) % 0.44/0.64 | ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_ya,v_w),V_U,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ) ). % 0.44/0.64 % 0.44/0.64 cnf(cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__1_0,axiom, % 0.44/0.64 c_in(c_Pair(V_x,V_x,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ). % 0.44/0.64 % 0.44/0.64 cnf(cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__4_0,axiom, % 0.44/0.64 ( ~ c_in(c_Pair(V_z,V_w,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) % 0.44/0.64 | ~ c_in(c_Pair(V_x,V_y,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) % 0.44/0.64 | c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(V_x,V_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(V_y,V_w),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ) ). % 0.44/0.64 % 0.44/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.44/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.44/0.64 % Proof found % 0.44/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.44/0.64 % SZS output start Proof % 0.58/0.64 %ClaNum:5(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.58/0.64 %VarNum:12(SingletonVarNum:6) % 0.58/0.64 %MaxLitNum:3 % 0.58/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 0.58/0.64 %SharedTerms:13 % 0.58/0.64 %goalClause: 1 2 4 % 0.58/0.64 %singleGoalClaCount:2 % 0.58/0.64 [1]P1(f3(a1,a8,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2)) % 0.58/0.64 [2]P1(f3(a9,a7,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2)) % 0.58/0.64 [3]P1(f3(x31,x31,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2)) % 0.58/0.64 [4]~P1(f3(f5(a8,a7),x41,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2))+~P1(f3(f5(a1,a9),x41,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2)) % 0.58/0.64 [5]~P1(f3(x52,x54,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2))+~P1(f3(x51,x53,a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2))+P1(f3(f5(x51,x52),f5(x53,x54),a2,a2),a4,f6(a2,a2)) % 0.58/0.64 %EqnAxiom % 0.58/0.64 % 0.58/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.58/0.64 cnf(9,plain, % 0.58/0.64 ($false), % 0.58/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,3,4,5]), % 0.58/0.64 ['proof']). % 0.58/0.64 % SZS output end Proof % 0.58/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------