  Hitting formulas have been studied in many different contexts at least since
[Iwama,89]. A hitting formula is a set of Boolean clauses such that any two of
them cannot be simultaneously falsified. [Peitl,Szeider,05] conjectured that
hitting formulas should contain the hardest formulas for resolution. They
supported their conjecture with experimental findings. Using the fact that
hitting formulas are easy to check for satisfiability we use them to build a
static proof system Hitting: a refutation of a CNF in Hitting is an
unsatisfiable hitting formula such that each of its clauses is a weakening of a
clause of the refuted CNF. Comparing this system to resolution and other proof
systems is equivalent to studying the hardness of hitting formulas.
  We show that tree-like resolution and Hitting are quasi-polynomially
separated. We prove that Hitting is quasi-polynomially simulated by tree-like
resolution, thus hitting formulas cannot be exponentially hard for resolution,
so Peitl-Szeider's conjecture is partially refuted. Nevertheless Hitting is
surprisingly difficult to polynomially simulate. Using the ideas of PIT for
noncommutative circuits [Raz-Shpilka,05] we show that Hitting is simulated by
Extended Frege. As a byproduct, we show that a number of static (semi)algebraic
systems are verifiable in a deterministic polynomial time.
  We consider multiple extensions of Hitting. Hitting(+) formulas are
conjunctions of clauses containing affine equations instead of just literals,
and every assignment falsifies at most one clause. The resulting system is
related to Res(+) proof system for which no superpolynomial lower bounds are
known: Hitting(+) simulates the tree-like version of Res(+) and is at least
quasi-polynomially stronger. We show an exponential lower bound for Hitting(+).
