%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : DAT009_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 : n022.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 22:18:52 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 4.23s 1.27s % Output : Proof 4.89s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : DAT009_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 14:36:55 EDT 2023 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.59 ________ _____ % 0.19/0.59 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.19/0.59 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.19/0.59 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.19/0.59 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.19/0.59 % 0.19/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.19/0.59 (2023-06-19) % 0.19/0.59 % 0.19/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.19/0.59 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.19/0.59 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.19/0.59 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.19/0.59 % 0.19/0.59 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.19/0.59 % 0.19/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.19/0.60 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.19/0.61 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.19/0.61 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.12/0.97 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.12/0.97 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.34/1.01 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.34/1.01 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.34/1.01 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.34/1.01 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.34/1.02 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.24/1.13 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.24/1.13 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.24/1.13 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.24/1.13 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.24/1.14 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.24/1.14 Prover 6: Proving ... % 3.24/1.14 Prover 2: Proving ... % 4.23/1.27 Prover 2: proved (658ms) % 4.23/1.27 Prover 0: proved (657ms) % 4.23/1.27 % 4.23/1.27 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.23/1.27 % 4.23/1.27 % 4.23/1.27 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.23/1.27 % 4.23/1.27 Prover 3: stopped % 4.23/1.27 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 4.23/1.27 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 4.23/1.27 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 4.23/1.27 Prover 5: stopped % 4.42/1.28 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 4.42/1.28 Prover 6: stopped % 4.42/1.28 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 4.42/1.29 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 4.42/1.29 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 4.42/1.30 Prover 1: Found proof (size 14) % 4.42/1.30 Prover 1: proved (687ms) % 4.42/1.30 Prover 4: Found proof (size 14) % 4.42/1.30 Prover 4: proved (687ms) % 4.42/1.30 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 4.42/1.30 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 4.42/1.31 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 4.42/1.32 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.42/1.32 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.42/1.32 Prover 10: stopped % 4.42/1.32 Prover 13: stopped % 4.42/1.33 Prover 7: stopped % 4.79/1.34 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.79/1.34 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 4.79/1.34 Prover 11: stopped % 4.89/1.35 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.89/1.35 Prover 8: stopped % 4.89/1.35 % 4.89/1.35 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.89/1.35 % 4.89/1.35 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 4.89/1.35 Assumptions after simplification: % 4.89/1.35 --------------------------------- % 4.89/1.35 % 4.89/1.35 (ax1) % 4.89/1.38 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: array] : ! [v4: int] : % 4.89/1.38 (v4 = v2 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v2) = v3) | ~ (read(v3, v1) = v4) | ~ % 4.89/1.38 array(v0)) % 4.89/1.38 % 4.89/1.38 (ax2) % 4.89/1.38 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: array] : % 4.89/1.38 ! [v5: int] : (v2 = v1 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v3) = v4) | ~ (read(v4, v2) = v5) % 4.89/1.38 | ~ array(v0) | read(v0, v2) = v5) % 4.89/1.38 % 4.89/1.38 (co1) % 4.89/1.38 ? [v0: array] : ? [v1: array] : ? [v2: int] : (write(v1, v2, $sum(v2, 3)) = % 4.89/1.38 v0 & array(v1) & array(v0) & ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v4, % 4.89/1.38 v3)) | ~ (read(v1, v3) = v4)) & ? [v3: int] : ? [v4: int] : % 4.89/1.38 ($lesseq(v4, v3) & read(v0, v3) = v4)) % 4.89/1.38 % 4.89/1.38 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 4.89/1.38 --------------------------------- % 4.89/1.38 % 4.89/1.38 Begin of proof % 4.89/1.38 | % 4.89/1.38 | DELTA: instantiating (co1) with fresh symbols all_7_0, all_7_1, all_7_2 gives: % 4.89/1.39 | (1) write(all_7_1, all_7_0, $sum(all_7_0, 3)) = all_7_2 & array(all_7_1) & % 4.89/1.39 | array(all_7_2) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, v0)) | % 4.89/1.39 | ~ (read(all_7_1, v0) = v1)) & ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : % 4.89/1.39 | ($lesseq(v1, v0) & read(all_7_2, v0) = v1) % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.39 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 4.89/1.39 | (2) array(all_7_1) % 4.89/1.39 | (3) write(all_7_1, all_7_0, $sum(all_7_0, 3)) = all_7_2 % 4.89/1.39 | (4) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, v0)) | ~ (read(all_7_1, % 4.89/1.39 | v0) = v1)) % 4.89/1.39 | (5) ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ($lesseq(v1, v0) & read(all_7_2, v0) = % 4.89/1.39 | v1) % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.39 | DELTA: instantiating (5) with fresh symbols all_10_0, all_10_1 gives: % 4.89/1.39 | (6) $lesseq(all_10_0, all_10_1) & read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.39 | ALPHA: (6) implies: % 4.89/1.39 | (7) $lesseq(all_10_0, all_10_1) % 4.89/1.39 | (8) read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.39 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_1, all_7_0, all_10_1, % 4.89/1.39 | $sum(all_7_0, 3), all_7_2, all_10_0, simplifying with (2), (3), % 4.89/1.39 | (8) gives: % 4.89/1.39 | (9) all_10_1 = all_7_0 | read(all_7_1, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.39 | BETA: splitting (9) gives: % 4.89/1.39 | % 4.89/1.40 | Case 1: % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | (10) read(all_7_1, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_10_1, all_10_0, simplifying with % 4.89/1.40 | | (10) gives: % 4.89/1.40 | | (11) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_10_0, all_10_1)) % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (7), (11) imply: % 4.89/1.40 | | (12) $false % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | CLOSE: (12) is inconsistent. % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | Case 2: % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | (13) all_10_1 = all_7_0 % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | REDUCE: (7), (13) imply: % 4.89/1.40 | | (14) $lesseq(all_10_0, all_7_0) % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | REDUCE: (8), (13) imply: % 4.89/1.40 | | (15) read(all_7_2, all_7_0) = all_10_0 % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_1, all_7_0, $sum(all_7_0, 3), % 4.89/1.40 | | all_7_2, all_10_0, simplifying with (2), (3), (15) gives: % 4.89/1.40 | | (16) $difference(all_10_0, all_7_0) = 3 % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | REDUCE: (14), (16) imply: % 4.89/1.40 | | (17) $false % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 4.89/1.40 | | % 4.89/1.40 | End of split % 4.89/1.40 | % 4.89/1.40 End of proof % 4.89/1.40 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 4.89/1.40 % 4.89/1.40 811ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------