TSTP Solution File: COM002-2 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : COM002-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n002.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 : 300s
% DateTime : Wed Aug 30 18:35:07 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.76s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12 % Problem : COM002-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.11/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 13:47:50 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.75 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.75 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.75 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.75 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.75 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.75 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 % Result :Theorem 0.140000s
% 0.20/0.75 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.140000s
% 0.20/0.75 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.75 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.75 % File : COM002-2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.20/0.75 % Domain : Computing Theory
% 0.20/0.75 % Problem : A program correctness theorem.
% 0.20/0.75 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.75 % Theorem formulation : Considers failure rather than success
% 0.20/0.75 % in the state space.
% 0.20/0.75 % English : A computing state space, with eight states - P1 to P8.
% 0.20/0.75 % P1 leads to P3 via P2. There is a branch at P3 such that the
% 0.20/0.75 % following state is either P4 or P6. P6 leads to P8, which has
% 0.20/0.75 % a loop back to P3, while P4 leads to termination. The problem
% 0.20/0.75 % is to show that there is a loop in the computation, passing
% 0.20/0.75 % through P3.
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 % Refs : [RR+72] Reboh et al. (1972), Study of automatic theorem provin
% 0.20/0.75 % Source : [TPTP]
% 0.20/0.75 % Names :
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.75 % Rating : 0.00 v2.1.0, 0.12 v2.0.0
% 0.20/0.75 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 15 unt; 1 nHn; 18 RR)
% 0.20/0.75 % Number of literals : 25 ( 0 equ; 8 neg)
% 0.20/0.75 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.75 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.75 % Number of predicates : 4 ( 4 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.75 % Number of functors : 22 ( 22 usr; 16 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.75 % Number of variables : 11 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.20/0.75 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_NHN
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 % Comments : I suspect this problem was originally by R.M. Burstall.
% 0.20/0.75 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(direct_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.75 ( ~ fails(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.75 | ~ follows(Goal_state,Start_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.75 ( ~ fails(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.75 | fails(Goal_state,Intermediate_state)
% 0.20/0.75 | fails(Intermediate_state,Start_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(goto_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.75 ( ~ fails(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.75 | ~ has(Start_state,goto(Label))
% 0.20/0.75 | ~ labels(Label,Goal_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(conditional_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.75 ( ~ fails(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.75 | ~ has(Start_state,ifthen(Condition,Goal_state)) ) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(state_1,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 has(p1,assign(register_j,n0)) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(transition_1_to_2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 follows(p2,p1) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(state_2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 has(p2,assign(register_k,n1)) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(label_state_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 labels(loop,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(transition_2_to_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 follows(p3,p2) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(state_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 has(p3,ifthen(equal_function(register_j,n),p4)) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(state_4,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 has(p4,goto(out)) ).
% 0.20/0.75
% 0.20/0.75 cnf(transition_4_to_5,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.75 follows(p5,p4) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(transition_3_to_6,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 follows(p6,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(state_6,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 has(p6,assign(register_k,times(n2,register_k))) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(transition_6_to_7,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 follows(p7,p6) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(state_7,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 has(p7,assign(register_j,plus(register_j,n1))) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(transition_7_to_8,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 follows(p8,p7) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(state_8,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.76 has(p8,goto(loop)) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.76 fails(p3,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.76 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.76 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.76 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.76 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.76 %ClaNum:19(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.76 %VarNum:21(SingletonVarNum:11)
% 0.20/0.76 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.76 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.20/0.76 %SharedTerms:41
% 0.20/0.76 %goalClause: 1
% 0.20/0.76 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.20/0.76 [1]P1(a1,a1)
% 0.20/0.76 [2]P2(a2,a3)
% 0.20/0.76 [3]P2(a1,a2)
% 0.20/0.76 [4]P2(a14,a15)
% 0.20/0.76 [5]P2(a16,a1)
% 0.20/0.76 [6]P2(a17,a16)
% 0.20/0.76 [7]P2(a18,a17)
% 0.20/0.76 [8]P3(a4,a1)
% 0.20/0.76 [9]P4(a15,f5(a9))
% 0.20/0.76 [10]P4(a18,f5(a4))
% 0.20/0.76 [11]P4(a3,f6(a19,a10))
% 0.20/0.76 [12]P4(a2,f6(a21,a12))
% 0.20/0.76 [13]P4(a16,f6(a21,f22(a13,a21)))
% 0.20/0.76 [14]P4(a17,f6(a19,f20(a19,a12)))
% 0.20/0.76 [15]P4(a1,f8(f7(a19,a11),a15))
% 0.20/0.76 [16]~P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x161,x162)
% 0.20/0.76 [19]~P1(x191,x192)+~P4(x192,f8(x193,x191))
% 0.20/0.76 [17]~P1(x173,x172)+P1(x171,x172)+P1(x173,x171)
% 0.20/0.76 [18]~P1(x181,x182)+~P3(x183,x181)+~P4(x182,f5(x183))
% 0.20/0.76 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.76
% 0.20/0.76 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a15,a1)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,15,16,19])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a1,a18)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,8,10,15,16,19,18])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(24,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (P1(a1,a15)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,8,10,15,16,19,18,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a2,a3)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,21,22,17,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (P1(a18,a15)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,22,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(40,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a1,a2)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(44,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (P1(a2,a15)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[40,24,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(50,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a14,a15)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,28,44,17,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(58,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a14,a1)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[21,8,24,50,18,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(64,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a16,a1)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(68,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a16,a18)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,64,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(74,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a17,a16)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,58,1,17,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(88,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a18,a17)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[7,8,24,74,68,18,17,16])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(94,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (P1(a17,a15)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[34,88,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(110,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a1,a17)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,88,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(174,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 (~P1(a17,a1)),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[74,64,17])).
% 0.20/0.76 cnf(259,plain,
% 0.20/0.76 ($false),
% 0.20/0.76 inference(scs_inference,[],[110,94,174,1,9,18,17]),
% 0.20/0.76 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.76 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.76 % Total time :0.140000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------