%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COM002_1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 0.24s 5.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 33 ( 19 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 54 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 41 ( 20 ~; 16 |; 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 : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 0 sgn 31 !; 0 ?; 31 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
state: $tType ).
tff(decl_sort2,type,
label: $tType ).
tff(decl_sort3,type,
statement: $tType ).
tff(decl_25,type,
p3: state ).
tff(decl_28,type,
p6: state ).
tff(decl_29,type,
p7: state ).
tff(decl_30,type,
p8: state ).
tff(decl_38,type,
loop: label ).
tff(decl_41,type,
goto: label > statement ).
tff(decl_45,type,
follows: ( state * state ) > $o ).
tff(decl_46,type,
succeeds: ( state * state ) > $o ).
tff(decl_47,type,
labels: ( state * label ) > $o ).
tff(decl_48,type,
has: ( statement * state ) > $o ).
tff(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
! [X1: state,X3: state,X2: state] :
( ( succeeds(X3,X1)
& succeeds(X2,X3) )
=> succeeds(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transitivity_of_success) ).
tff(direct_success,axiom,
! [X1: state,X2: state] :
( follows(X2,X1)
=> succeeds(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goto_success) ).
tff(state_8,hypothesis,
has(p8,goto(loop)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',state_8) ).
tff(transition_7_to_8,hypothesis,
follows(p8,p7),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_7_to_8) ).
tff(label_state_3,hypothesis,
labels(loop,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',label_state_3) ).
tff(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,conjecture,
succeeds(p3,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) ).
tff(transition_6_to_7,hypothesis,
follows(p7,p6),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_6_to_7) ).
tff(transition_3_to_6,hypothesis,
follows(p6,p3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_3_to_6) ).
tff(c_0_9,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])])]) ).
tff(c_0_10,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_11,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])])]) ).
tcf(c_0_12,plain,
! [X1: state,X2: state,X3: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X2,X3)
| ~ succeeds(X1,X2)
| succeeds(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
tcf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X1: state,X2: state] :
( ~ follows(X1,X2)
| succeeds(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
tcf(c_0_14,plain,
! [X1: state,X4: label,X2: state] :
( ~ labels(X4,X2)
| ~ has(X1,goto(X4))
| succeeds(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
tcf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
has(p8,goto(loop)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[state_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_16,plain,
! [X1: state,X3: state,X2: state] :
( ~ follows(X3,X2)
| ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
| succeeds(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
tcf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
follows(p8,p7),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[transition_7_to_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ labels(loop,X1)
| succeeds(X1,p8) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
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(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3]) ).
tcf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
follows(p7,p6),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[transition_6_to_7]) ).
tcf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X1,p8)
| succeeds(X1,p7) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
tcf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
succeeds(p3,p8),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
tff(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_20]) ).
tcf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
follows(p6,p3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[transition_3_to_6]) ).
tcf(c_0_26,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X1,p7)
| succeeds(X1,p6) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_21]) ).
tcf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
succeeds(p3,p7),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]) ).
tff(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_24]) ).
tcf(c_0_29,hypothesis,
! [X1: state] :
( ~ succeeds(X1,p6)
| succeeds(X1,p3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_25]) ).
tcf(c_0_30,hypothesis,
succeeds(p3,p6),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]) ).
tcf(c_0_31,negated_conjecture,
~ succeeds(p3,p3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_28]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]),c_0_31]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : COM002_1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/5.46 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.19/5.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/5.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/5.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/5.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/5.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/5.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/5.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:13:13 UTC 2026
% 0.19/5.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/5.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/5.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/5.54 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.24/5.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 3343440 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/5.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/5.57 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3343444 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/5.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/5.57 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % Proof found!
% 0.24/5.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/5.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/5.57 % Parsed axioms : 51
% 0.24/5.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Initial clauses : 51
% 0.24/5.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 32
% 0.24/5.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 19
% 0.24/5.57 % Processed clauses : 38
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 38
% 0.24/5.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Generated clauses : 34
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 30
% 0.24/5.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Paramodulations : 34
% 0.24/5.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 38
% 0.24/5.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 18
% 0.24/5.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.24/5.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 14
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 11
% 0.24/5.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 25
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 39
% 0.24/5.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 36
% 0.24/5.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 46
% 0.24/5.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1383
% 0.24/5.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 66
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.57 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/5.57 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.57 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/5.57 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Total time : 0.036 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/5.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------