TSTP Solution File: SWV817-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : SWV817-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n010.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 : Thu Aug 31 21:35:21 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : SWV817-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 07:11:04 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File : SWV817-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.20/0.63 % Domain : Software Verification
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem : Hoare logic with procedures 112_1
% 0.20/0.63 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.63 % English : Completeness is taken relative to completeness of the underlying
% 0.20/0.63 % logic. Two versions of completeness proof: nested single recursion
% 0.20/0.63 % and simultaneous recursion in call rule.
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Refs : [Nip10] Nipkow (2010), Email to Geoff Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.63 % : [BN10] Boehme & Nipkow (2010), Sledgehammer: Judgement Day
% 0.20/0.63 % Source : [Nip10]
% 0.20/0.63 % Names : Hoare-112_1 [Nip10]
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63 % Rating : 0.05 v8.1.0, 0.00 v7.5.0, 0.05 v7.4.0, 0.06 v7.3.0, 0.08 v7.1.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.07 v6.0.0, 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.05 v5.3.0, 0.06 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.1.0, 0.06 v5.0.0, 0.07 v4.1.0
% 0.20/0.63 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 7 ( 4 unt; 1 nHn; 4 RR)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of literals : 10 ( 6 equ; 4 neg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of variables : 5 ( 4 sgn)
% 0.20/0.63 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_SEQ_NHN
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Comments :
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_id__apply_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 c_Fun_Oid(V_x,T_a) = V_x ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_id__def_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 c_Fun_Oid(v_x,t_a) = v_x ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_state__not__singleton__def__raw_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ( v_sko__Hoare__Mirabelle__Xstate__not__singleton__def__raw__1 != v_sko__Hoare__Mirabelle__Xstate__not__singleton__def__raw__2
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ostate__not__singleton ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_state__not__singleton__def_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ( c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ostate__not__singleton
% 0.20/0.63 | V_x = V_xa ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_state__not__singleton__def_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ( v_sko__Hoare__Mirabelle__Xstate__not__singleton__def__1 != v_sko__Hoare__Mirabelle__Xstate__not__singleton__def__2
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ostate__not__singleton ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 c_Hoare__Mirabelle_Ostate__not__singleton ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 V_s = v_x ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.63 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:4)
% 0.20/0.63 %VarNum:1(SingletonVarNum:1)
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxLitNum:2
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.63 %SharedTerms:10
% 0.20/0.63 %goalClause: 5 6
% 0.20/0.63 %singleGoalClaCount:2
% 0.20/0.63 [5]P1(a500)
% 0.20/0.63 [6]E(x61,a1)
% 0.20/0.63 [7]~E(a2,a5)+~P1(a500)
% 0.20/0.63 [8]~E(a3,a4)+~P1(a500)
% 0.20/0.63 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.63 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.20/0.63 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.20/0.63 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.20/0.63 [4]~P1(x41)+P1(x42)+~E(x41,x42)
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(10,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (E(a1,x101)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,2])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(12,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (E(x121,a1)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(rename_variables,[],[6])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(14,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~E(a3,a4)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,6,12,2,4,3,8])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 ($false),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,10,14,2,3]),
% 0.20/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------