%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : SYN354-1 : 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 : n001.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 19:05:17 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.50s 0.61s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.50s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYN354-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.2.0. % 0.07/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu % 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jun 23 18:41:53 EDT 2024 % 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.50/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.50/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.60 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.50/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.50/0.60 % Transform :cnf % 0.50/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.50/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.50/0.60 % 0.50/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.50/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.50/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.60 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.60 % File : SYN354-1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v1.2.0. % 0.50/0.60 % Domain : Syntactic % 0.50/0.60 % Problem : Church problem 46.20 (1) % 0.50/0.60 % Version : Especial. % 0.50/0.60 % English : % 0.50/0.60 % 0.50/0.60 % Refs : [Chu56] Church (1956), Introduction to Mathematical Logic I % 0.50/0.60 % : [FL+93] Fermuller et al. (1993), Resolution Methods for the De % 0.50/0.60 % : [Tam94] Tammet (1994), Email to Geoff Sutcliffe. % 0.50/0.60 % Source : [Tam94] % 0.50/0.61 % Names : Ch20N1 [Tam94] % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.50/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v7.1.0, 0.17 v7.0.0, 0.12 v6.3.0, 0.14 v6.2.0, 0.00 v2.0.0 % 0.50/0.61 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 7 ( 2 unt; 1 nHn; 7 RR) % 0.50/0.61 % Number of literals : 17 ( 0 equ; 9 neg) % 0.50/0.61 % Maximal clause size : 4 ( 2 avg) % 0.50/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg) % 0.50/0.61 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty) % 0.50/0.61 % Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty) % 0.50/0.61 % Number of variables : 10 ( 1 sgn) % 0.50/0.61 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_NHN % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 % Comments : All the problems here can be decided by using a certain % 0.50/0.61 % completeness-preserving term ordering strategies. See [FL+93]. % 0.50/0.61 % : The conversion from the full 1st order form in [Chu56] % 0.50/0.61 % to clause form was done by hand by Tanel Tammet. % 0.50/0.61 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause1,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 f(a,b) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause2,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 g(a,b) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause3,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 ( g(b,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | g(Y2,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ f(Y1,Y2) % 0.50/0.61 | f(b,Y2) ) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause4,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 ( ~ g(b,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ g(Y2,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ f(Y1,Y2) % 0.50/0.61 | f(b,Y2) ) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause5,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 ( g(b,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ g(Y1,z(Y1,Y2)) ) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause6,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 ( ~ g(b,z(Y1,Y2)) % 0.50/0.61 | g(Y1,z(Y1,Y2)) ) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 cnf(clause7,negated_conjecture, % 0.50/0.61 ( ~ f(a,Y1) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ f(b,Y1) % 0.50/0.61 | ~ f(Y1,Y2) ) ). % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.61 % Proof found % 0.50/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.50/0.61 % SZS output start Proof % 0.50/0.61 %ClaNum:7(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.50/0.61 %VarNum:30(SingletonVarNum:10) % 0.50/0.61 %MaxLitNum:4 % 0.50/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 0.50/0.61 %SharedTerms:4 % 0.50/0.61 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % 0.50/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:2 % 0.50/0.61 [1]P1(a1,a2) % 0.50/0.61 [2]P2(a1,a2) % 0.50/0.61 [4]P2(x41,f3(x41,x42))+~P2(a2,f3(x41,x42)) % 0.50/0.61 [5]~P2(x51,f3(x51,x52))+P2(a2,f3(x51,x52)) % 0.50/0.61 [3]~P1(x31,x32)+~P1(a1,x31)+~P1(a2,x31) % 0.50/0.61 [6]~P1(x62,x61)+P2(x61,f3(x62,x61))+P1(a2,x61)+P2(a2,f3(x62,x61)) % 0.50/0.61 [7]~P1(x72,x71)+~P2(x71,f3(x72,x71))+P1(a2,x71)+~P2(a2,f3(x72,x71)) % 0.50/0.61 %EqnAxiom % 0.50/0.61 % 0.50/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.61 cnf(8,plain, % 0.50/0.61 (~P1(a2,x81)+~P1(a2,a2)), % 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3])). % 0.50/0.61 cnf(10,plain, % 0.50/0.61 (~P1(a2,a2)), % 0.50/0.61 inference(factoring_inference,[],[8])). % 0.50/0.61 cnf(13,plain, % 0.50/0.61 (P2(a2,f3(a1,a2))+P2(a1,f3(a1,a2))), % 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,1,4,6])). % 0.50/0.61 cnf(14,plain, % 0.50/0.61 (P2(a2,f3(a1,a2))), % 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[13,5])). % 0.50/0.61 cnf(17,plain, % 0.50/0.61 ($false), % 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14,10,4,7]), % 0.50/0.61 ['proof']). % 0.50/0.61 % SZS output end Proof % 0.50/0.61 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------