%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : SYN321-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.2.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/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 19:05:09 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.61s 0.65s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.61s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.08/0.13 % Problem : SYN321-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.2.0. % 0.08/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n025.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 : Sun Jun 23 19:17:09 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.43/0.62 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.61/0.65 %------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.61/0.65 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.61/0.65 % Transform :cnf % 0.61/0.65 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.61/0.65 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.61/0.65 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.61/0.65 %------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 % File : SYN321-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.2.0. % 0.61/0.65 % Domain : Syntactic % 0.61/0.65 % Problem : Church problem 46.3 (2) % 0.61/0.65 % Version : Especial. % 0.61/0.65 % English : % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 % Refs : [Chu56] Church (1956), Introduction to Mathematical Logic I % 0.61/0.65 % : [FL+93] Fermuller et al. (1993), Resolution Methods for the De % 0.61/0.65 % : [Tam94] Tammet (1994), Email to Geoff Sutcliffe. % 0.61/0.65 % Source : [Tam94] % 0.61/0.65 % Names : Ch3N2 [Tam94] % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.61/0.65 % Rating : 0.00 v5.5.0, 0.20 v5.4.0, 0.00 v2.1.0, 0.00 v2.0.0 % 0.61/0.65 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 4 ( 0 unt; 1 nHn; 2 RR) % 0.61/0.65 % Number of literals : 8 ( 0 equ; 4 neg) % 0.61/0.65 % Maximal clause size : 2 ( 2 avg) % 0.61/0.65 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.61/0.65 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty) % 0.61/0.65 % Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.61/0.65 % Number of variables : 4 ( 3 sgn) % 0.61/0.65 % SPC : CNF_UNS_EPR_NEQ_NHN % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 % Comments : All the problems here can be decided by using a certain % 0.61/0.65 % completeness-preserving term ordering strategies. See [FL+93]. % 0.61/0.65 % : The conversion from the full 1st order form in [Chu56] % 0.61/0.65 % to clause form was done by hand by Tanel Tammet. % 0.61/0.65 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 cnf(clause1,negated_conjecture, % 0.61/0.65 ( ~ f(a,Z) % 0.61/0.65 | g(a,U) ) ). % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 cnf(clause2,negated_conjecture, % 0.61/0.65 ( ~ g(U,U) % 0.61/0.65 | f(U,b) ) ). % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 cnf(clause3,negated_conjecture, % 0.61/0.65 ( f(a,b) % 0.61/0.65 | g(a,U) ) ). % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 cnf(clause4,negated_conjecture, % 0.61/0.65 ( ~ f(a,b) % 0.61/0.65 | ~ g(a,d) ) ). % 0.61/0.65 % 0.61/0.65 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 %------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.65 % Proof found % 0.61/0.65 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.61/0.65 % SZS output start Proof % 0.61/0.65 %ClaNum:4(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.61/0.65 %VarNum:6(SingletonVarNum:4) % 0.61/0.65 %MaxLitNum:2 % 0.61/0.65 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.61/0.66 %SharedTerms:6 % 0.61/0.66 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 % 0.61/0.66 [4]~P2(a1,a2)+~P1(a1,a3) % 0.61/0.66 [1]P1(a1,x11)+P2(a1,a2) % 0.61/0.66 [3]~P1(x31,x31)+P2(x31,a2) % 0.61/0.66 [2]P1(a1,x21)+~P2(a1,x22) % 0.61/0.66 %EqnAxiom % 0.61/0.66 % 0.61/0.66 %------------------------------------------- % 0.61/0.66 cnf(5,plain, % 0.61/0.66 (P2(a1,a2)), % 0.61/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3])). % 0.61/0.66 cnf(6,plain, % 0.61/0.66 (P1(a1,x61)), % 0.61/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,2])). % 0.61/0.66 cnf(7,plain, % 0.61/0.66 (~P1(a1,a3)), % 0.61/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,4])). % 0.61/0.66 cnf(8,plain, % 0.61/0.66 ($false), % 0.61/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,7]), % 0.61/0.66 ['proof']). % 0.61/0.66 % SZS output end Proof % 0.61/0.66 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------