TSTP Solution File: COM002-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : COM002-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n026.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 18:35:06 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : COM002-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.12/0.35 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.35 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 13:20:05 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.68 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.68 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.68 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.68 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.68
% 0.20/0.68 % Result :Theorem 0.050000s
% 0.20/0.68 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.050000s
% 0.20/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.68 % File : COM002-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.20/0.68 % Domain : Computing Theory
% 0.20/0.68 % Problem : A program correctness theorem
% 0.20/0.69 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.69 % English : A computing state space, with eight states - P1 to P8.
% 0.20/0.69 % P1 leads to P3 via P2. There is a branch at P3 such that the
% 0.20/0.69 % following state is either P4 or P6. P6 leads to P8, which has
% 0.20/0.69 % a loop back to P3, while P4 leads to termination. The problem
% 0.20/0.69 % is to show that there is a loop in the computation, passing
% 0.20/0.69 % through P3.
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 % Refs : [RR+72] Reboh et al. (1972), Study of automatic theorem provin
% 0.20/0.69 % : [WM76] Wilson & Minker (1976), Resolution, Refinements, and S
% 0.20/0.69 % Source : [SPRFN]
% 0.20/0.69 % Names : BURSTALL [RR+72]
% 0.20/0.69 % : BURSTALL [WM76]
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.69 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.2.1, 0.11 v2.1.0, 0.00 v2.0.0
% 0.20/0.69 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 19 RR)
% 0.20/0.69 % Number of literals : 25 ( 0 equ; 7 neg)
% 0.20/0.69 % Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.69 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.69 % Number of predicates : 4 ( 4 usr; 0 prp; 2-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.69 % Number of functors : 22 ( 22 usr; 16 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.69 % Number of variables : 11 ( 1 sgn)
% 0.20/0.69 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 % Comments : I suspect this problem was originally by R.M. Burstall.
% 0.20/0.69 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(direct_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.69 ( succeeds(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ follows(Goal_state,Start_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.69 ( succeeds(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ succeeds(Goal_state,Intermediate_state)
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ succeeds(Intermediate_state,Start_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(goto_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.69 ( succeeds(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ has(Start_state,goto(Label))
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ labels(Label,Goal_state) ) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(conditional_success,axiom,
% 0.20/0.69 ( succeeds(Goal_state,Start_state)
% 0.20/0.69 | ~ has(Start_state,ifthen(Condition,Goal_state)) ) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_1,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p1,assign(register_j,n0)) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_1_to_2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p2,p1) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p2,assign(register_k,n1)) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(label_state_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 labels(loop,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_2_to_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p3,p2) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p3,ifthen(equal_function(register_j,n),p4)) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_4,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p4,goto(out)) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_4_to_5,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p5,p4) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_3_to_6,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p6,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_6,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p6,assign(register_k,times(n2,register_k))) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_6_to_7,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p7,p6) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_7,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p7,assign(register_j,plus(register_j,n1))) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(transition_7_to_8,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 follows(p8,p7) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(state_8,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.69 has(p8,goto(loop)) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.69 ~ succeeds(p3,p3) ).
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.69 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.69 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.69 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.69 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.69 %ClaNum:19(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.69 %VarNum:21(SingletonVarNum:11)
% 0.20/0.69 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.69 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.20/0.69 %SharedTerms:41
% 0.20/0.69 %goalClause: 15
% 0.20/0.69 %singleGoalClaCount:1
% 0.20/0.69 [1]P1(a1,a2)
% 0.20/0.69 [2]P1(a13,a1)
% 0.20/0.69 [3]P1(a14,a15)
% 0.20/0.69 [4]P1(a16,a13)
% 0.20/0.69 [5]P1(a17,a16)
% 0.20/0.69 [6]P1(a18,a17)
% 0.20/0.69 [7]P2(a3,a13)
% 0.20/0.69 [15]~P4(a13,a13)
% 0.20/0.69 [8]P3(a15,f4(a8))
% 0.20/0.69 [9]P3(a18,f4(a3))
% 0.20/0.69 [10]P3(a2,f5(a19,a9))
% 0.20/0.69 [11]P3(a1,f5(a21,a11))
% 0.20/0.69 [12]P3(a16,f5(a21,f22(a12,a21)))
% 0.20/0.69 [13]P3(a17,f5(a19,f20(a19,a11)))
% 0.20/0.69 [14]P3(a13,f7(f6(a19,a10),a15))
% 0.20/0.69 [16]~P1(x161,x162)+P4(x161,x162)
% 0.20/0.69 [19]P4(x191,x192)+~P3(x192,f7(x193,x191))
% 0.20/0.69 [17]~P4(x171,x173)+P4(x171,x172)+~P4(x173,x172)
% 0.20/0.69 [18]P4(x181,x182)+~P2(x183,x181)+~P3(x182,f4(x183))
% 0.20/0.69 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.69
% 0.20/0.69 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (~P4(a13,a15)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,14,16,19,17])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (P4(a13,a18)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,7,18])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(72,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (P4(a16,a13)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,16])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(84,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (P4(a17,a16)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,7,22,18,16])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(90,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (P4(a17,a13)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,72,84,16,17])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(96,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (P4(a18,a17)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,34,90,17,16])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(146,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 (~P4(a13,a17)),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,90,15,7,18,17])).
% 0.20/0.69 cnf(156,plain,
% 0.20/0.69 ($false),
% 0.20/0.69 inference(scs_inference,[],[34,146,96,17]),
% 0.20/0.69 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.69 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.69 % Total time :0.050000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------