%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.7
% Problem : LCL363-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:19:01 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 60.70s 60.80s
% Output : Assurance 0s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----No solution output by system
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL363-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.3.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.06/0.33 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.33 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.33 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.06/0.33 % DateTime : Sat Sep 5 01:13:10 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.26/0.49 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 60.60/60.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 60.60/60.80 % File :CSE---1.7
% 60.60/60.80 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 60.60/60.80 % Transform :cnf
% 60.60/60.80 % Format :tptp:raw
% 60.60/60.80 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 60.60/60.80
% 60.60/60.80 % Result :Theorem 60.333454s
% 60.60/60.80 % Output :CNFRefutation 60.333454s
% 60.60/60.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.80 % File : LCL363-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.3.0.
% 60.70/60.80 % Domain : Logic Calculi (Implication/Negation 2 valued sentential)
% 60.70/60.80 % Problem : CN-12 depends on the Lukasiewicz system
% 60.70/60.80 % Version : [McC92] axioms.
% 60.70/60.80 % English : An axiomatisation of the Implication/Negation 2 valued
% 60.70/60.80 % sentential calculus is {CN-1,CN-2,CN-3} by Lukasiewicz.
% 60.70/60.80 % Show that CN-12 depends on the Lukasiewicz system.
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 % Refs : [Wos96] Wos (1996), Combining Resonance with Heat
% 60.70/60.80 % : [McC92] McCune (1992), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 60.70/60.80 % Source : [Wos96]
% 60.70/60.80 % Names : thesis_12 [Wos96]
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 60.70/60.80 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.07 v6.0.0, 0.00 v5.5.0, 0.06 v5.4.0, 0.11 v5.3.0, 0.20 v5.2.0, 0.08 v5.1.0, 0.12 v5.0.0, 0.13 v4.0.1, 0.00 v2.6.0, 0.14 v2.5.0, 0.00 v2.3.0
% 60.70/60.80 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 5 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 2 RR)
% 60.70/60.80 % Number of literals : 7 ( 0 equ; 3 neg)
% 60.70/60.80 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 60.70/60.80 % Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% 60.70/60.80 % Number of predicates : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 60.70/60.80 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 60.70/60.80 % Number of variables : 8 ( 1 sgn)
% 60.70/60.80 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 % Comments :
% 60.70/60.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.80 cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
% 60.70/60.80 ( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X,Y))
% 60.70/60.80 | ~ is_a_theorem(X)
% 60.70/60.80 | is_a_theorem(Y) ) ).
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 cnf(cn_1,axiom,
% 60.70/60.80 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X,Y),implies(implies(Y,Z),implies(X,Z)))) ).
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 cnf(cn_2,axiom,
% 60.70/60.80 is_a_theorem(implies(implies(not(X),X),X)) ).
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 cnf(cn_3,axiom,
% 60.70/60.80 is_a_theorem(implies(X,implies(not(X),Y))) ).
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 cnf(prove_cn_12,negated_conjecture,
% 60.70/60.80 ~ is_a_theorem(implies(x,implies(implies(not(y),y),y))) ).
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.80 % Proof found
% 60.70/60.80 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 60.70/60.80 % SZS output start Proof
% 60.70/60.80 %ClaNum:5(EqnAxiom:0)
% 60.70/60.80 %VarNum:16(SingletonVarNum:8)
% 60.70/60.80 %MaxLitNum:3
% 60.70/60.80 %MaxfuncDepth:4
% 60.70/60.80 %SharedTerms:7
% 60.70/60.80 %goalClause: 4
% 60.70/60.80 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 60.70/60.80 [4]~P1(f2(a3,f2(f2(f1(a4),a4),a4)))
% 60.70/60.80 [2]P1(f2(f2(f1(x21),x21),x21))
% 60.70/60.80 [1]P1(f2(x11,f2(f1(x11),x12)))
% 60.70/60.80 [3]P1(f2(f2(x31,x32),f2(f2(x32,x33),f2(x31,x33))))
% 60.70/60.80 [5]P1(x51)+~P1(x52)+~P1(f2(x52,x51))
% 60.70/60.80 %EqnAxiom
% 60.70/60.80
% 60.70/60.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(6,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(x61,x62),f2(f2(f1(x61),x61),x62)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,3,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(9,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f1(x91),x91),f2(f1(x91),x92)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,1,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(14,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(f1(x141),x142),x143),f2(x141,x143)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(17,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (~P1(f2(f2(f1(a3),x171),f2(f2(f1(a4),a4),a4)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[14,4,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(112,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(x1121,x1121))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,14,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(123,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(f2(f1(x1231),x1231),x1232),x1233),f2(f2(x1231,x1232),x1233)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,6,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(128,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(f1(x1281),x1282),x1283),f2(f2(f1(x1281),x1281),x1283)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,3,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(147,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f1(x1471),x1471),f2(f2(x1472,x1473),f2(f1(x1471),x1473))))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[128,3,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(173,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f1(f2(x1731,x1731)),x1732))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[112,1,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(178,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(x1781,x1782),f2(f1(f2(x1783,x1783)),x1782)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[173,147,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(250,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(f1(f2(x2501,x2501)),x2502),x2503),f2(f2(x2504,x2502),x2503)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,178,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(257,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(x2571,f2(x2572,x2572)),f2(f1(f2(x2572,x2572)),x2573)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,250,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(266,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(x2661,f2(f1(f2(x2662,x2662)),x2663)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[14,257,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(279,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (~P1(f2(f2(f1(f2(x2791,x2791)),x2792),f2(f2(f1(a4),a4),a4)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,250,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(284,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(f1(f2(x2841,x2841)),x2842),x2843),f2(x2844,x2843)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[266,3,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(326,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 (P1(f2(f2(f2(x3261,x3261),x3262),f2(x3263,x3262)))),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[123,284,5])).
% 60.70/60.81 cnf(401,plain,
% 60.70/60.81 ($false),
% 60.70/60.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[279,326,6,5]),
% 60.70/60.81 ['proof']).
% 60.70/60.81 % SZS output end Proof
% 60.70/60.81 % Total time :60.333454s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------