%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : CSR004+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 600s
% DateTime : Fri Jul 15 03:01:21 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 44 ( 15 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 25 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 49 ( 17 ~; 21 |; 10 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 2 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(overflow_3,conjecture,
happens(overflow,n3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',overflow_3) ).
fof(happens_all_defn,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( happens(X4,X5)
<=> ( ( X4 = tapOn
& X5 = n0 )
| ( holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),X5)
& holdsAt(filling,X5)
& X4 = overflow ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR001+1.ax',happens_all_defn) ).
fof(waterLevel_3,lemma,
holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),n3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',waterLevel_3) ).
fof(filling_3,lemma,
holdsAt(filling,n3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',filling_3) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ happens(overflow,n3),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[overflow_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ happens(overflow,n3),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X6,X7,X6,X7] :
( ( holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),X7)
| X6 = tapOn
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( holdsAt(filling,X7)
| X6 = tapOn
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( X6 = overflow
| X6 = tapOn
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),X7)
| X7 = n0
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( holdsAt(filling,X7)
| X7 = n0
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( X6 = overflow
| X7 = n0
| ~ happens(X6,X7) )
& ( X6 != tapOn
| X7 != n0
| happens(X6,X7) )
& ( ~ holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),X7)
| ~ holdsAt(filling,X7)
| X6 != overflow
| happens(X6,X7) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[happens_all_defn])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ happens(overflow,n3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( happens(X1,X2)
| X1 != overflow
| ~ holdsAt(filling,X2)
| ~ holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,lemma,
holdsAt(waterLevel(n3),n3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[waterLevel_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
holdsAt(filling,n3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[filling_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12 % Problem : CSR004+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.1.0.
% 0.11/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Sat Jun 11 12:38:49 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.41 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.41 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.41 # Preprocessing time : 0.019 s
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object total steps : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause steps : 5
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object conjectures : 5
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause conjectures : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.41 # Parsed axioms : 57
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 23
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses : 97
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses in saturation : 96
% 0.22/1.41 # Processed clauses : 50
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # ...remaining for further processing : 48
% 0.22/1.41 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Generated clauses : 43
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 15
% 0.22/1.41 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Paramodulations : 38
% 0.22/1.41 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of processed clauses : 44
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.22/1.41 # Negative unit clauses : 13
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit-clauses : 26
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 61
% 0.22/1.41 # ...number of literals in the above : 238
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 83
% 0.22/1.41 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 68
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 27
% 0.22/1.41 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Termbank termtop insertions : 4308
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.41 # User time : 0.018 s
% 0.22/1.41 # System time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Maximum resident set size: 3200 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------