I am solving a few questions to better understand the way resolution works and now i've come across this question which has no explicit conclusion and I am supposed to use 'Resolution Refutation' to a set of clauses! I am having difficulty understanding what exactly this means, is it ok to choose any of the clauses and negate them and then try to arrive at a contradiction?
Posting the whole question here can be perceived as posting a homework and so I am not doing it.
In general, the Resolution method amounts to prove that a set $\{ ϕ_1,ϕ_2,\ldots, ϕ_n \}$ of formulae logically imply a formula $\psi$, or equivalently that the sentence :
showing that the set $\{ ϕ_1,ϕ_2,\ldots, ϕ_n, \lnot \psi \}$ is unsatisfiable.
Th method needs that the sentence (1) is transformed into a conjunctive normal form with the conjuncts viewed as elements in a set $S$ of clauses.
We can also apply the method to a set $\{ ϕ_1,ϕ_2,\ldots, ϕ_n \}$ of formulae to show that it is satisfiable or not.
If the application of the method derives the empty clause, then we can conclude that the set is unsatisfiable, which is equivalent to say that :