%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : COM001_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n009.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 18:44:10 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 5.31s 1.46s % Output : Proof 6.43s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.12/0.12 % Problem : COM001_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % 0.12/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n009.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 12:50:50 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.56/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.56/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.56/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.56/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.56/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.56/0.60 % 0.56/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.56/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.56/0.60 % 0.56/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.56/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.56/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.56/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.56/0.60 % 0.56/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.56/0.60 % 0.56/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.62/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.62/0.62 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.62/0.62 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.62/0.62 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.62/0.62 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.62/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.62/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.62/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.51/1.05 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.06 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.08 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.08 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.08 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.08 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.08 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.89/1.25 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.89/1.26 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.89/1.27 Prover 2: Proving ... % 3.89/1.28 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.89/1.30 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.89/1.31 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.89/1.32 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.31/1.45 Prover 3: proved (832ms) % 5.31/1.46 % 5.31/1.46 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 5.31/1.46 % 5.31/1.46 Prover 6: stopped % 5.31/1.46 Prover 5: stopped % 5.31/1.46 Prover 0: stopped % 5.31/1.46 Prover 2: stopped % 5.31/1.46 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 5.31/1.46 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 5.31/1.46 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 5.31/1.46 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 5.31/1.46 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 5.47/1.49 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 5.47/1.49 Prover 1: Found proof (size 21) % 5.47/1.49 Prover 1: proved (876ms) % 5.47/1.49 Prover 4: stopped % 5.47/1.50 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 5.47/1.51 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 5.47/1.51 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 5.47/1.52 Prover 13: stopped % 5.84/1.52 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 5.84/1.52 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.84/1.52 Prover 10: stopped % 5.84/1.53 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.84/1.54 Prover 11: stopped % 5.84/1.54 Prover 7: stopped % 6.03/1.56 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.03/1.56 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.03/1.57 Prover 8: stopped % 6.03/1.57 % 6.03/1.57 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 6.03/1.57 % 6.03/1.57 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 6.03/1.58 Assumptions after simplification: % 6.03/1.58 --------------------------------- % 6.03/1.58 % 6.03/1.58 (direct_success) % 6.03/1.60 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: state] : ( ~ (follows(v1, v0) = 0) | ~ state(v1) | % 6.03/1.60 ~ state(v0) | succeeds(v1, v0) = 0) % 6.03/1.60 % 6.03/1.60 (goto_success) % 6.03/1.61 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: label] : ! [v2: state] : ! [v3: statement] : ( ~ % 6.03/1.61 (goto(v1) = v3) | ~ (has(v2, v3) = 0) | ~ (labels(v1, v0) = 0) | ~ % 6.03/1.61 label(v1) | ~ state(v2) | ~ state(v0) | succeeds(v0, v2) = 0) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (label_state_3) % 6.03/1.61 labels(loop, p3) = 0 & label(loop) & state(p3) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) % 6.03/1.61 state(p3) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p3) = v0) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (state_8) % 6.03/1.61 label(loop) & state(p8) & ? [v0: statement] : (goto(loop) = v0 & has(p8, v0) % 6.03/1.61 = 0 & statement(v0)) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (transition_3_to_8) % 6.03/1.61 follows(p8, p3) = 0 & state(p8) & state(p3) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (transitivity_of_success) % 6.03/1.61 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: state] : ! [v2: state] : ! [v3: int] : (v3 = 0 | ~ % 6.03/1.61 (succeeds(v2, v0) = v3) | ~ (succeeds(v1, v0) = 0) | ~ state(v2) | ~ % 6.03/1.61 state(v1) | ~ state(v0) | ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & succeeds(v2, v1) = % 6.03/1.61 v4)) % 6.03/1.61 % 6.03/1.61 (function-axioms) % 6.03/1.62 ! [v0: boolean] : ! [v1: boolean] : ! [v2: number] : ! [v3: register] : % 6.03/1.62 (v1 = v0 | ~ (equal_function(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (equal_function(v3, v2) = % 6.03/1.62 v0)) & ! [v0: statement] : ! [v1: statement] : ! [v2: state] : ! [v3: % 6.03/1.62 boolean] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (ifthen(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (ifthen(v3, v2) = v0)) & % 6.03/1.62 ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: statement] : % 6.03/1.62 ! [v3: state] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (has(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (has(v3, v2) = v0)) & % 6.03/1.62 ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: state] : ! % 6.03/1.62 [v3: label] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (labels(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (labels(v3, v2) = v0)) % 6.03/1.62 & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: state] : % 6.03/1.62 ! [v3: state] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (follows(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (follows(v3, v2) = % 6.03/1.62 v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: % 6.03/1.62 state] : ! [v3: state] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (succeeds(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ % 6.03/1.62 (succeeds(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: statement] : ! [v1: statement] : ! [v2: % 6.03/1.62 label] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (goto(v2) = v1) | ~ (goto(v2) = v0)) % 6.03/1.62 % 6.03/1.62 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 6.03/1.62 -------------------------------------------- % 6.03/1.62 conditional_success, state_3, state_4, transition_4_to_5 % 6.03/1.62 % 6.03/1.62 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 6.03/1.62 --------------------------------- % 6.03/1.62 % 6.03/1.62 Begin of proof % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (label_state_3) implies: % 6.03/1.62 | (1) labels(loop, p3) = 0 % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (transition_3_to_8) implies: % 6.03/1.62 | (2) follows(p8, p3) = 0 % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (state_8) implies: % 6.03/1.62 | (3) state(p8) % 6.03/1.62 | (4) label(loop) % 6.03/1.62 | (5) ? [v0: statement] : (goto(loop) = v0 & has(p8, v0) = 0 & % 6.03/1.62 | statement(v0)) % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) implies: % 6.03/1.62 | (6) state(p3) % 6.03/1.62 | (7) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p3) = v0) % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies: % 6.03/1.62 | (8) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: % 6.03/1.62 | state] : ! [v3: state] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (succeeds(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ % 6.03/1.62 | (succeeds(v3, v2) = v0)) % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | DELTA: instantiating (7) with fresh symbol all_20_0 gives: % 6.03/1.62 | (9) ~ (all_20_0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p3) = all_20_0 % 6.03/1.62 | % 6.03/1.62 | ALPHA: (9) implies: % 6.03/1.63 | (10) ~ (all_20_0 = 0) % 6.43/1.63 | (11) succeeds(p3, p3) = all_20_0 % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | DELTA: instantiating (5) with fresh symbol all_24_0 gives: % 6.43/1.63 | (12) goto(loop) = all_24_0 & has(p8, all_24_0) = 0 & statement(all_24_0) % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | ALPHA: (12) implies: % 6.43/1.63 | (13) has(p8, all_24_0) = 0 % 6.43/1.63 | (14) goto(loop) = all_24_0 % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (direct_success) with p3, p8, simplifying with (2), % 6.43/1.63 | (3), (6) gives: % 6.43/1.63 | (15) succeeds(p8, p3) = 0 % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (goto_success) with p3, loop, p8, all_24_0, % 6.43/1.63 | simplifying with (1), (3), (4), (6), (13), (14) gives: % 6.43/1.63 | (16) succeeds(p3, p8) = 0 % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (transitivity_of_success) with p3, p8, p3, % 6.43/1.63 | all_20_0, simplifying with (3), (6), (11), (15) gives: % 6.43/1.63 | (17) all_20_0 = 0 | ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p8) = v0) % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | BETA: splitting (17) gives: % 6.43/1.63 | % 6.43/1.63 | Case 1: % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | (18) all_20_0 = 0 % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | REDUCE: (10), (18) imply: % 6.43/1.63 | | (19) $false % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | Case 2: % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | (20) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p8) = v0) % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | DELTA: instantiating (20) with fresh symbol all_41_0 gives: % 6.43/1.63 | | (21) ~ (all_41_0 = 0) & succeeds(p3, p8) = all_41_0 % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | ALPHA: (21) implies: % 6.43/1.63 | | (22) ~ (all_41_0 = 0) % 6.43/1.63 | | (23) succeeds(p3, p8) = all_41_0 % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with 0, all_41_0, p8, p3, simplifying with % 6.43/1.63 | | (16), (23) gives: % 6.43/1.63 | | (24) all_41_0 = 0 % 6.43/1.63 | | % 6.43/1.63 | | REDUCE: (22), (24) imply: % 6.43/1.64 | | (25) $false % 6.43/1.64 | | % 6.43/1.64 | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent. % 6.43/1.64 | | % 6.43/1.64 | End of split % 6.43/1.64 | % 6.43/1.64 End of proof % 6.43/1.64 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 6.43/1.64 % 6.43/1.64 1036ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------