%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : LAT262-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n029.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 10:18:27 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.45s 0.61s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.45s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.13 % Problem : LAT262-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % 0.07/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n029.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 : Sat Jun 22 00:04:54 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.45/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.45/0.61 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.45/0.61 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.45/0.61 % Transform :cnf % 0.45/0.61 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.45/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.45/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.45/0.61 % File : LAT262-2 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.2.0. % 0.45/0.61 % Domain : Analysis % 0.45/0.61 % Problem : Problem about Tarski's fixed point theorem % 0.45/0.61 % Version : [Pau06] axioms : Reduced > Especial. % 0.45/0.61 % English : % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 % Refs : [Pau06] Paulson (2006), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.45/0.61 % Source : [Pau06] % 0.45/0.61 % Names : % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.45/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.08 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.1.0, 0.11 v4.0.1, 0.17 v3.3.0, 0.14 v3.2.0 % 0.45/0.61 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 3 RR) % 0.45/0.61 % Number of literals : 4 ( 2 equ; 1 neg) % 0.45/0.61 % Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.45/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.45/0.61 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 0.45/0.61 % Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty) % 0.45/0.61 % Number of variables : 2 ( 0 sgn) % 0.45/0.61 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_SEQ_HRN % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 % Comments : The problems in the [Pau06] collection each have very many axioms, % 0.45/0.61 % of which only a small selection are required for the refutation. % 0.45/0.61 % The mission is to find those few axioms, after which a refutation % 0.45/0.61 % can be quite easily found. This version has only the necessary % 0.45/0.61 % axioms. % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.45/0.61 cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture, % 0.45/0.61 c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),tc_set(t_a)) ). % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture, % 0.45/0.61 ~ c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(c_Tarski_Odual(v_cl,t_a),t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit),tc_set(t_a)) ). % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 cnf(cls_Tarski_OA_A_61_61_Apset_Acl_0,axiom, % 0.45/0.61 v_A = c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(v_cl,t_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) ). % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 cnf(cls_Tarski_Opset_A_Idual_Acl_J_A_61_61_Apset_Acl_0,axiom, % 0.45/0.61 c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(c_Tarski_Odual(V_cl,T_a),T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) = c_Tarski_Opotype_Opset(V_cl,T_a,tc_Product__Type_Ounit) ). % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.45/0.61 % Proof found % 0.45/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.45/0.61 % SZS output start Proof % 0.45/0.61 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:12) % 0.45/0.61 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:2) % 0.45/0.61 %MaxLitNum:1 % 0.45/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 0.45/0.61 %SharedTerms:12 % 0.45/0.61 %goalClause: 15 16 % 0.45/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:2 % 0.45/0.61 [13]E(f3(a1,a2,a5),a6) % 0.45/0.61 [15]P1(a8,f3(a1,a2,a5),f7(a2)) % 0.45/0.61 [16]~P1(a8,f3(f4(a1,a2),a2,a5),f7(a2)) % 0.45/0.61 [14]E(f3(f4(x141,x142),x142,a5),f3(x141,x142,a5)) % 0.45/0.61 %EqnAxiom % 0.45/0.61 [1]E(x11,x11) % 0.45/0.61 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22) % 0.45/0.61 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33) % 0.45/0.61 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41,x43,x44),f3(x42,x43,x44)) % 0.45/0.61 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x53,x51,x54),f3(x53,x52,x54)) % 0.45/0.61 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f3(x63,x64,x61),f3(x63,x64,x62)) % 0.45/0.61 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f4(x71,x73),f4(x72,x73)) % 0.45/0.61 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f4(x83,x81),f4(x83,x82)) % 0.45/0.61 [9]~E(x91,x92)+E(f7(x91),f7(x92)) % 0.45/0.61 [10]P1(x102,x103,x104)+~E(x101,x102)+~P1(x101,x103,x104) % 0.45/0.61 [11]P1(x113,x112,x114)+~E(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x111,x114) % 0.45/0.61 [12]P1(x123,x124,x122)+~E(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x124,x121) % 0.45/0.61 % 0.45/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.45/0.62 cnf(20,plain, % 0.45/0.62 ($false), % 0.45/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,16,14,13,2,3,11]), % 0.45/0.62 ['proof']). % 0.45/0.62 % SZS output end Proof % 0.45/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------