%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COM001_1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 : Thu Sep 24 12:11:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.11s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 14 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 33 ( 16 ~; 12 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 4 ( 3 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 0 sgn 26 !; 0 ?; 26 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
state: $tType ).
tff(decl_sort2,type,
label: $tType ).
tff(decl_sort3,type,
statement: $tType ).
tff(decl_23,type,
p3: state ).
tff(decl_26,type,
p8: state ).
tff(decl_30,type,
loop: label ).
tff(decl_32,type,
goto: label > statement ).
tff(decl_34,type,
follows: ( state * state ) > $o ).
tff(decl_35,type,
succeeds: ( state * state ) > $o ).
tff(decl_36,type,
labels: ( state * label ) > $o ).
tff(decl_37,type,
has: ( statement * state ) > $o ).
tff(direct_success,axiom,
! [X1: state,X2: state] :
( follows(X2,X1)
=> succeeds(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',direct_success) ).
tff(goto_success,axiom,
! [X2: state,X4: label,X1: state] :
( ( labels(X4,X2)
& has(X1,goto(X4)) )
=> succeeds(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goto_success) ).
tff(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,conjecture,
succeeds(p3,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) ).
tff(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
! [X1: state,X3: state,X2: state] :
( ( succeeds(X3,X1)
& succeeds(X2,X3) )
=> succeeds(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transitivity_of_success) ).
tff(transition_3_to_8,hypothesis,
follows(p8,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_3_to_8) ).
tff(state_8,hypothesis,
has(p8,goto(loop)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',state_8) ).
tff(label_state_3,hypothesis,
labels(loop,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',label_state_3) ).
tff(c_0_7,plain,
! [X6: state,X7: state] :
( succeeds(X7,X6)
| ~ follows(X7,X6) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[direct_success])])]) ).
tff(c_0_8,plain,
! [X11: state,X12: label,X13: state] :
( succeeds(X11,X13)
| ~ labels(X12,X11)
| ~ has(X13,goto(X12)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[goto_success])])]) ).
tff(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3]) ).
tff(c_0_10,plain,
! [X8: state,X9: state,X10: state] :
( succeeds(X10,X8)
| ~ succeeds(X9,X8)
| ~ succeeds(X10,X9) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[transitivity_of_success])])]) ).
tcf(c_0_11,plain,
! [X1: state,X2: state] :
( ~ follows(X1,X2)
| succeeds(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
tcf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
follows(p8,p3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[transition_3_to_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X1: state,X4: label,X2: state] :
( ~ labels(X4,X2)
| ~ has(X1,goto(X4))
| succeeds(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
has(p8,goto(loop)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[state_8]) ).
tff(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
tcf(c_0_16,plain,
! [X1: state,X2: state,X3: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X2,X3)
| ~ succeeds(X1,X2)
| succeeds(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
tcf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
succeeds(p8,p3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
tcf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ labels(loop,X1)
| succeeds(X1,p8) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
tcf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
labels(loop,p3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[label_state_3]) ).
tff(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
tcf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X1,p8)
| succeeds(X1,p3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
tcf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
succeeds(p3,p8),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
tcf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : COM001_1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:08:44 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.11/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % sh5l with pid 2518184 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.11/0.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.11/0.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2518188 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.11/0.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.11/0.44 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 21
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.11/0.44 % Processed clauses : 21
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 21
% 0.11/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Generated clauses : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 12
% 0.11/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Paramodulations : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 21
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.11/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20
% 0.11/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 20
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 699
% 0.11/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 67
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.11/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------