↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : COM002-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n007.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   : Unsatisfiable 0.10s 0.44s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    7
%            Number of leaves      :    9
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   31 (  17 unt;   0 nHn;  31 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   52 (   0 equ;  24 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   5 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   31 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transitivity_of_success) ).

cnf(direct_success,axiom,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',direct_success) ).

cnf(goto_success,axiom,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goto_success) ).

cnf(state_8,hypothesis,
    has(p8,goto(loop)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',state_8) ).

cnf(transition_7_to_8,hypothesis,
    follows(p8,p7),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_7_to_8) ).

cnf(label_state_3,hypothesis,
    labels(loop,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',label_state_3) ).

cnf(transition_6_to_7,hypothesis,
    follows(p7,p6),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_6_to_7) ).

cnf(transition_3_to_6,hypothesis,
    follows(p6,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_3_to_6) ).

cnf(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[transitivity_of_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[direct_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goto_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_13,plain,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_10 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_11 ).

cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
    has(p8,goto(loop)),
    state_8 ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    ( ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | ~ follows(X3,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    follows(p8,p7),
    transition_7_to_8 ).

cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
    ( ~ labels(loop,X1)
    | succeeds(X1,p8) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
    labels(loop,p3),
    label_state_3 ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    follows(p7,p6),
    transition_6_to_7 ).

cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
    ( ~ succeeds(X1,p8)
    | succeeds(X1,p7) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
    succeeds(p3,p8),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
    follows(p6,p3),
    transition_3_to_6 ).

cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
    ( ~ succeeds(X1,p7)
    | succeeds(X1,p6) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_20]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
    succeeds(p3,p7),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3]) ).

cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
    ( ~ succeeds(X1,p6)
    | succeeds(X1,p3) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_23]) ).

cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
    succeeds(p3,p6),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]) ).

cnf(c_0_29,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    c_0_26 ).

cnf(c_0_30,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]),c_0_29]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : COM002-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36  % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.37  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:11:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.37  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41  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
% 0.10/0.44  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % new_bool_3 with pid 1300236 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1300242 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.44  
% 0.10/0.44  % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.44  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.10/0.44  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.44  % Parsed axioms                        : 19
% 0.10/0.44  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Initial clauses                      : 19
% 0.10/0.44  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 19
% 0.10/0.44  % Processed clauses                    : 38
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % ...remaining for further processing  : 38
% 0.10/0.44  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Generated clauses                    : 34
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 30
% 0.10/0.44  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Paramodulations                      : 34
% 0.10/0.44  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Total rewrite steps                  : 1
% 0.10/0.44  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of processed clauses  : 38
% 0.10/0.44  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 18
% 0.10/0.44  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.44  %    Negative unit clauses             : 6
% 0.10/0.44  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 14
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 11
% 0.10/0.44  % ...number of literals in the above   : 25
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 61
% 0.10/0.44  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 50
% 0.10/0.44  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 35
% 0.10/0.44  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.10/0.44  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 650
% 0.10/0.44  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 20
% 0.10/0.44  
% 0.10/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.44  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.44  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.10/0.44  
% 0.10/0.44  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.10/0.44  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.44  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.10/0.44  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.44  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------