%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : COM002_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 : 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 18:44:11 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 7.51s 1.76s % Output : Proof 9.79s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.13 % Problem : COM002_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % 0.07/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n020.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 13:00:58 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.61 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.61 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.61 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.61 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.61 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.61 % 0.20/0.61 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.61 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.61 % 0.20/0.61 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.61 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.61 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.61 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.61 % 0.20/0.61 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.61 % 0.20/0.61 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.50/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.50/0.64 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.50/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.46/1.07 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.46/1.07 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.11 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.11 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.12 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.12 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.12 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.94/1.33 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.94/1.33 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.94/1.33 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.94/1.33 Prover 2: Proving ... % 3.94/1.33 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.94/1.35 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.94/1.37 Prover 0: Proving ... % 6.06/1.60 Prover 3: gave up % 6.06/1.61 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 6.06/1.62 Prover 6: gave up % 6.61/1.62 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 6.61/1.64 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 6.61/1.64 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 6.61/1.65 Prover 1: gave up % 6.61/1.67 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889 % 6.96/1.69 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.96/1.72 Prover 9: Preprocessing ... % 6.96/1.73 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.96/1.74 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.51/1.75 Prover 5: proved (1117ms) % 7.51/1.75 % 7.51/1.76 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.51/1.76 % 7.51/1.76 Prover 2: stopped % 7.51/1.76 Prover 0: stopped % 7.51/1.76 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.51/1.76 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.51/1.76 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 7.67/1.80 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 7.67/1.80 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.67/1.81 Prover 9: stopped % 7.99/1.82 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 7.99/1.82 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 7.99/1.83 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 7.99/1.85 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 7.99/1.85 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.99/1.87 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.99/1.88 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.99/1.89 Prover 16: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.99/1.89 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.31/1.92 Prover 8: gave up % 8.31/1.92 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085 % 8.31/1.94 Prover 19: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.94 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.10/1.99 Prover 7: Found proof (size 22) % 9.10/1.99 Prover 7: proved (388ms) % 9.10/1.99 Prover 11: stopped % 9.10/1.99 Prover 10: Found proof (size 16) % 9.10/1.99 Prover 10: proved (238ms) % 9.10/2.00 Prover 13: stopped % 9.10/2.00 Prover 4: stopped % 9.10/2.00 Prover 16: stopped % 9.40/2.04 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.40/2.04 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.47/2.05 Prover 19: stopped % 9.47/2.05 % 9.47/2.05 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 9.47/2.05 % 9.47/2.06 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 9.47/2.06 Assumptions after simplification: % 9.47/2.06 --------------------------------- % 9.47/2.06 % 9.47/2.06 (direct_success) % 9.47/2.07 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: state] : ( ~ state(v1) | ~ state(v0) | ~ % 9.47/2.07 follows(v1, v0) | succeeds(v1, v0)) % 9.47/2.07 % 9.47/2.07 (goto_success) % 9.47/2.10 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: label] : ! [v2: state] : ! [v3: statement] : ( ~ % 9.47/2.10 (goto(v1) = v3) | ~ label(v1) | ~ state(v2) | ~ state(v0) | ~ has(v2, % 9.47/2.10 v3) | ~ labels(v1, v0) | succeeds(v0, v2)) % 9.47/2.10 % 9.47/2.10 (label_state_3) % 9.47/2.10 label(loop) & state(p3) & labels(loop, p3) % 9.47/2.10 % 9.47/2.10 (prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) % 9.47/2.10 state(p3) & ~ succeeds(p3, p3) % 9.47/2.10 % 9.47/2.10 (state_8) % 9.47/2.10 label(loop) & state(p8) & ? [v0: statement] : (goto(loop) = v0 & % 9.47/2.10 statement(v0) & has(p8, v0)) % 9.47/2.10 % 9.47/2.10 (transition_3_to_6) % 9.47/2.11 state(p6) & state(p3) & follows(p6, p3) % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 (transition_6_to_7) % 9.47/2.11 state(p7) & state(p6) & follows(p7, p6) % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 (transition_7_to_8) % 9.47/2.11 state(p8) & state(p7) & follows(p8, p7) % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 (transitivity_of_success) % 9.47/2.11 ! [v0: state] : ! [v1: state] : ! [v2: state] : ( ~ state(v2) | ~ % 9.47/2.11 state(v1) | ~ state(v0) | ~ succeeds(v2, v1) | ~ succeeds(v1, v0) | % 9.47/2.11 succeeds(v2, v0)) % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 9.47/2.11 -------------------------------------------- % 9.47/2.11 conditional_success, state_1, state_2, state_3, state_4, state_6, state_7, % 9.47/2.11 transition_1_to_2, transition_2_to_3, transition_4_to_5 % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 9.47/2.11 --------------------------------- % 9.47/2.11 % 9.47/2.11 Begin of proof % 9.47/2.11 | % 9.47/2.11 | ALPHA: (label_state_3) implies: % 9.47/2.11 | (1) labels(loop, p3) % 9.47/2.11 | % 9.47/2.11 | ALPHA: (transition_3_to_6) implies: % 9.47/2.11 | (2) follows(p6, p3) % 9.47/2.11 | % 9.47/2.11 | ALPHA: (transition_6_to_7) implies: % 9.79/2.11 | (3) follows(p7, p6) % 9.79/2.11 | (4) state(p6) % 9.79/2.11 | % 9.79/2.11 | ALPHA: (transition_7_to_8) implies: % 9.79/2.11 | (5) follows(p8, p7) % 9.79/2.11 | (6) state(p7) % 9.79/2.11 | % 9.79/2.11 | ALPHA: (state_8) implies: % 9.79/2.11 | (7) state(p8) % 9.79/2.11 | (8) label(loop) % 9.79/2.11 | (9) ? [v0: statement] : (goto(loop) = v0 & statement(v0) & has(p8, v0)) % 9.79/2.11 | % 9.79/2.11 | ALPHA: (prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) implies: % 9.79/2.11 | (10) ~ succeeds(p3, p3) % 9.79/2.12 | (11) state(p3) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | DELTA: instantiating (9) with fresh symbol all_20_0 gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (12) goto(loop) = all_20_0 & statement(all_20_0) & has(p8, all_20_0) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | ALPHA: (12) implies: % 9.79/2.12 | (13) has(p8, all_20_0) % 9.79/2.12 | (14) goto(loop) = all_20_0 % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (direct_success) with p3, p6, simplifying with (2), % 9.79/2.12 | (4), (11) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (15) succeeds(p6, p3) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (direct_success) with p6, p7, simplifying with (3), % 9.79/2.12 | (4), (6) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (16) succeeds(p7, p6) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (direct_success) with p7, p8, simplifying with (5), % 9.79/2.12 | (6), (7) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (17) succeeds(p8, p7) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (goto_success) with p3, loop, p8, all_20_0, % 9.79/2.12 | simplifying with (1), (7), (8), (11), (13), (14) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (18) succeeds(p3, p8) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (transitivity_of_success) with p3, p6, p3, % 9.79/2.12 | simplifying with (4), (10), (11), (15) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (19) ~ succeeds(p3, p6) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (transitivity_of_success) with p6, p7, p3, % 9.79/2.12 | simplifying with (4), (6), (11), (16) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (20) ~ succeeds(p3, p7) | succeeds(p3, p6) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (transitivity_of_success) with p7, p8, p3, % 9.79/2.12 | simplifying with (6), (7), (11), (17), (18) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | (21) succeeds(p3, p7) % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | BETA: splitting (20) gives: % 9.79/2.12 | % 9.79/2.12 | Case 1: % 9.79/2.12 | | % 9.79/2.12 | | (22) ~ succeeds(p3, p7) % 9.79/2.12 | | % 9.79/2.12 | | PRED_UNIFY: (21), (22) imply: % 9.79/2.12 | | (23) $false % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent. % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | Case 2: % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | | (24) succeeds(p3, p6) % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | | PRED_UNIFY: (19), (24) imply: % 9.79/2.13 | | (25) $false % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent. % 9.79/2.13 | | % 9.79/2.13 | End of split % 9.79/2.13 | % 9.79/2.13 End of proof % 9.79/2.13 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 9.79/2.13 % 9.79/2.13 1515ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------