%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : ALG194+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.7.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n020.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 16:39:47 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 18.96s 3.29s % Output : Proof 30.28s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : ALG194+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.7.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n020.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 : Mon Aug 28 03:09:14 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.59 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.59 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.59 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.59 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.59 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.59 % 0.20/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.59 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.59 % 0.20/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.59 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.59 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.59 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.59 % 0.20/0.59 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.59 % 0.20/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.62 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.62 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 8.62/1.90 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 8.77/1.90 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 8.77/1.91 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 9.59/2.04 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 9.59/2.05 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 9.59/2.06 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 9.59/2.07 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 15.36/2.82 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.36/2.82 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.36/2.83 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.36/2.83 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.36/2.84 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.36/2.85 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 18.96/3.29 Prover 0: proved (2675ms) % 18.96/3.29 % 18.96/3.29 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 18.96/3.29 % 18.96/3.31 Prover 3: proved (2675ms) % 18.96/3.31 % 18.96/3.31 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 18.96/3.31 % 18.96/3.32 Prover 2: stopped % 19.30/3.33 Prover 6: stopped % 19.43/3.35 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 19.43/3.35 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 19.43/3.35 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 19.43/3.35 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 22.85/3.85 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 23.40/3.92 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 24.34/4.01 Prover 5: stopped % 24.50/4.03 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 24.50/4.03 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 24.50/4.05 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 24.50/4.07 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 26.28/4.38 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 27.77/4.50 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 29.09/4.67 Prover 1: Found proof (size 46) % 29.09/4.67 Prover 1: proved (4059ms) % 29.48/4.69 Prover 4: Found proof (size 46) % 29.48/4.69 Prover 4: proved (4063ms) % 29.48/4.69 Prover 8: stopped % 29.48/4.69 Prover 13: stopped % 29.48/4.73 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 29.48/4.74 Prover 7: stopped % 29.48/4.75 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 29.90/4.75 Prover 11: stopped % 29.93/4.79 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 29.93/4.80 Prover 10: stopped % 29.93/4.80 % 29.93/4.80 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 29.93/4.80 % 29.93/4.80 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 29.93/4.80 Assumptions after simplification: % 29.93/4.80 --------------------------------- % 29.93/4.80 % 29.93/4.80 (co1) % 30.28/4.84 $i(e6) & $i(e5) & $i(e4) & $i(e3) & $i(e2) & $i(e1) & $i(e0) & ? [v0: $i] : % 30.28/4.84 ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] : ? [v6: % 30.28/4.84 $i] : (op(e6, e6) = v6 & op(e5, e5) = v5 & op(e4, e4) = v4 & op(e3, e3) = v3 % 30.28/4.84 & op(e2, e2) = v2 & op(e1, e1) = v1 & op(e0, e0) = v0 & $i(v6) & $i(v5) & % 30.28/4.84 $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ( ~ (v6 = e6) | ~ (v5 = e5) | % 30.28/4.84 ~ (v4 = e4) | ~ (v3 = e3) | ~ (v2 = e2) | ~ (v1 = e1) | ~ (v0 = e0)) & % 30.28/4.84 (v6 = e6 | v5 = e5 | v4 = e4 | v3 = e3 | v2 = e2 | v1 = e1 | v0 = e0) & ((v6 % 30.28/4.84 = e6 & v5 = e5 & v4 = e4 & v3 = e3 & v2 = e2 & v1 = e1 & v0 = e0) | ( ~ % 30.28/4.84 (v6 = e6) & ~ (v5 = e5) & ~ (v4 = e4) & ~ (v3 = e3) & ~ (v2 = e2) & % 30.28/4.84 ~ (v1 = e1) & ~ (v0 = e0)))) % 30.28/4.84 % 30.28/4.84 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 30.28/4.84 -------------------------------------------- % 30.28/4.84 ax1, ax2, ax3, ax4, ax5 % 30.28/4.84 % 30.28/4.84 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 30.28/4.84 --------------------------------- % 30.28/4.84 % 30.28/4.84 Begin of proof % 30.28/4.84 | % 30.28/4.84 | ALPHA: (co1) implies: % 30.28/4.85 | (1) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : % 30.28/4.85 | ? [v5: $i] : ? [v6: $i] : (op(e6, e6) = v6 & op(e5, e5) = v5 & op(e4, % 30.28/4.85 | e4) = v4 & op(e3, e3) = v3 & op(e2, e2) = v2 & op(e1, e1) = v1 & % 30.28/4.85 | op(e0, e0) = v0 & $i(v6) & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) % 30.28/4.85 | & $i(v0) & ( ~ (v6 = e6) | ~ (v5 = e5) | ~ (v4 = e4) | ~ (v3 = e3) % 30.28/4.85 | | ~ (v2 = e2) | ~ (v1 = e1) | ~ (v0 = e0)) & (v6 = e6 | v5 = e5 % 30.28/4.85 | | v4 = e4 | v3 = e3 | v2 = e2 | v1 = e1 | v0 = e0) & ((v6 = e6 & v5 % 30.28/4.85 | = e5 & v4 = e4 & v3 = e3 & v2 = e2 & v1 = e1 & v0 = e0) | ( ~ (v6 % 30.28/4.85 | = e6) & ~ (v5 = e5) & ~ (v4 = e4) & ~ (v3 = e3) & ~ (v2 = % 30.28/4.85 | e2) & ~ (v1 = e1) & ~ (v0 = e0)))) % 30.28/4.85 | % 30.28/4.85 | DELTA: instantiating (1) with fresh symbols all_4_0, all_4_1, all_4_2, % 30.28/4.85 | all_4_3, all_4_4, all_4_5, all_4_6 gives: % 30.28/4.85 | (2) op(e6, e6) = all_4_0 & op(e5, e5) = all_4_1 & op(e4, e4) = all_4_2 & % 30.28/4.85 | op(e3, e3) = all_4_3 & op(e2, e2) = all_4_4 & op(e1, e1) = all_4_5 & % 30.28/4.85 | op(e0, e0) = all_4_6 & $i(all_4_0) & $i(all_4_1) & $i(all_4_2) & % 30.28/4.85 | $i(all_4_3) & $i(all_4_4) & $i(all_4_5) & $i(all_4_6) & ( ~ (all_4_0 = % 30.28/4.85 | e6) | ~ (all_4_1 = e5) | ~ (all_4_2 = e4) | ~ (all_4_3 = e3) | % 30.28/4.85 | ~ (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0)) & (all_4_0 % 30.28/4.85 | = e6 | all_4_1 = e5 | all_4_2 = e4 | all_4_3 = e3 | all_4_4 = e2 | % 30.28/4.85 | all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0) & ((all_4_0 = e6 & all_4_1 = e5 & % 30.28/4.85 | all_4_2 = e4 & all_4_3 = e3 & all_4_4 = e2 & all_4_5 = e1 & all_4_6 % 30.28/4.85 | = e0) | ( ~ (all_4_0 = e6) & ~ (all_4_1 = e5) & ~ (all_4_2 = e4) % 30.28/4.85 | & ~ (all_4_3 = e3) & ~ (all_4_4 = e2) & ~ (all_4_5 = e1) & ~ % 30.28/4.85 | (all_4_6 = e0))) % 30.28/4.85 | % 30.28/4.85 | ALPHA: (2) implies: % 30.28/4.85 | (3) (all_4_0 = e6 & all_4_1 = e5 & all_4_2 = e4 & all_4_3 = e3 & all_4_4 = % 30.28/4.85 | e2 & all_4_5 = e1 & all_4_6 = e0) | ( ~ (all_4_0 = e6) & ~ (all_4_1 % 30.28/4.85 | = e5) & ~ (all_4_2 = e4) & ~ (all_4_3 = e3) & ~ (all_4_4 = e2) & % 30.28/4.85 | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) & ~ (all_4_6 = e0)) % 30.28/4.85 | (4) all_4_0 = e6 | all_4_1 = e5 | all_4_2 = e4 | all_4_3 = e3 | all_4_4 = % 30.28/4.85 | e2 | all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.85 | (5) ~ (all_4_0 = e6) | ~ (all_4_1 = e5) | ~ (all_4_2 = e4) | ~ (all_4_3 % 30.28/4.85 | = e3) | ~ (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.85 | % 30.28/4.86 | BETA: splitting (3) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | % 30.28/4.86 | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | (6) all_4_0 = e6 & all_4_1 = e5 & all_4_2 = e4 & all_4_3 = e3 & all_4_4 = % 30.28/4.86 | | e2 & all_4_5 = e1 & all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | ALPHA: (6) implies: % 30.28/4.86 | | (7) all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.86 | | (8) all_4_5 = e1 % 30.28/4.86 | | (9) all_4_4 = e2 % 30.28/4.86 | | (10) all_4_3 = e3 % 30.28/4.86 | | (11) all_4_2 = e4 % 30.28/4.86 | | (12) all_4_1 = e5 % 30.28/4.86 | | (13) all_4_0 = e6 % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | BETA: splitting (5) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | (14) ~ (all_4_0 = e6) % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | REDUCE: (13), (14) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | (15) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | CLOSE: (15) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | (16) ~ (all_4_1 = e5) | ~ (all_4_2 = e4) | ~ (all_4_3 = e3) | ~ % 30.28/4.86 | | | (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | BETA: splitting (16) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | (17) ~ (all_4_1 = e5) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | REDUCE: (12), (17) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | (18) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | (19) ~ (all_4_2 = e4) | ~ (all_4_3 = e3) | ~ (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ % 30.28/4.86 | | | | (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | BETA: splitting (19) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | (20) ~ (all_4_2 = e4) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | REDUCE: (11), (20) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | (21) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | (22) ~ (all_4_3 = e3) | ~ (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | BETA: splitting (22) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | (23) ~ (all_4_3 = e3) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | REDUCE: (10), (23) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | (24) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | CLOSE: (24) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | (25) ~ (all_4_4 = e2) | ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | BETA: splitting (25) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | (26) ~ (all_4_4 = e2) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | REDUCE: (9), (26) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | (27) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | (28) ~ (all_4_5 = e1) | ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | BETA: splitting (28) gives: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | (29) ~ (all_4_5 = e1) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | REDUCE: (8), (29) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | (30) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | CLOSE: (30) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | (31) ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | REDUCE: (7), (31) imply: % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | (32) $false % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | CLOSE: (32) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | | % 30.28/4.86 | | End of split % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | Case 2: % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | (33) ~ (all_4_0 = e6) & ~ (all_4_1 = e5) & ~ (all_4_2 = e4) & ~ % 30.28/4.86 | | (all_4_3 = e3) & ~ (all_4_4 = e2) & ~ (all_4_5 = e1) & ~ (all_4_6 % 30.28/4.86 | | = e0) % 30.28/4.86 | | % 30.28/4.86 | | ALPHA: (33) implies: % 30.28/4.87 | | (34) ~ (all_4_6 = e0) % 30.28/4.87 | | (35) ~ (all_4_5 = e1) % 30.28/4.87 | | (36) ~ (all_4_4 = e2) % 30.28/4.87 | | (37) ~ (all_4_3 = e3) % 30.28/4.87 | | (38) ~ (all_4_2 = e4) % 30.28/4.87 | | (39) ~ (all_4_1 = e5) % 30.28/4.87 | | (40) ~ (all_4_0 = e6) % 30.28/4.87 | | % 30.28/4.87 | | BETA: splitting (4) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | % 30.28/4.87 | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | (41) all_4_0 = e6 % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | REDUCE: (40), (41) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | (42) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | CLOSE: (42) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | (43) all_4_1 = e5 | all_4_2 = e4 | all_4_3 = e3 | all_4_4 = e2 | % 30.28/4.87 | | | all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | BETA: splitting (43) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | (44) all_4_1 = e5 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | REDUCE: (39), (44) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | (45) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | CLOSE: (45) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | (46) all_4_2 = e4 | all_4_3 = e3 | all_4_4 = e2 | all_4_5 = e1 | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | BETA: splitting (46) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | (47) all_4_2 = e4 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | REDUCE: (38), (47) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | (48) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | CLOSE: (48) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | (49) all_4_3 = e3 | all_4_4 = e2 | all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | BETA: splitting (49) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | (50) all_4_3 = e3 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | REDUCE: (37), (50) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | (51) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | CLOSE: (51) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | (52) all_4_4 = e2 | all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | BETA: splitting (52) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | (53) all_4_4 = e2 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | REDUCE: (36), (53) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | (54) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | CLOSE: (54) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | (55) all_4_5 = e1 | all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | BETA: splitting (55) gives: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | Case 1: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | (56) all_4_5 = e1 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | REDUCE: (35), (56) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | (57) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | CLOSE: (57) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | Case 2: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | (58) all_4_6 = e0 % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | REDUCE: (34), (58) imply: % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | (59) $false % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | CLOSE: (59) is inconsistent. % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | | % 30.28/4.87 | | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | | % 30.28/4.87 | End of split % 30.28/4.87 | % 30.28/4.87 End of proof % 30.28/4.87 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 30.28/4.87 % 30.28/4.87 4278ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------