%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : DAT011_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 : n013.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 3.79s 1.26s % Output : Proof 4.64s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.11 % Problem : DAT011_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % 0.00/0.12 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 14:22:17 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.56 ________ _____ % 0.19/0.56 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.19/0.56 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.19/0.56 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.19/0.56 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.19/0.56 % 0.19/0.56 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.19/0.56 (2023-06-19) % 0.19/0.56 % 0.19/0.56 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.19/0.56 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.19/0.56 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.19/0.56 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.19/0.56 % 0.19/0.56 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.19/0.56 % 0.19/0.56 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.19/0.57 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.19/0.59 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.19/0.59 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.36/0.99 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/0.99 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.71/1.02 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.71/1.02 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.71/1.02 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.75/1.02 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.75/1.02 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 3.28/1.13 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.28/1.13 Prover 6: Proving ... % 3.28/1.13 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.28/1.13 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.28/1.14 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.28/1.16 Prover 2: Proving ... % 3.28/1.16 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.79/1.25 Prover 3: proved (671ms) % 3.79/1.26 % 3.79/1.26 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 3.79/1.26 % 3.79/1.26 Prover 0: stopped % 3.79/1.26 Prover 6: stopped % 3.79/1.26 Prover 2: stopped % 3.79/1.26 Prover 5: stopped % 3.79/1.26 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 3.79/1.26 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 3.79/1.26 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 3.79/1.26 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 3.79/1.26 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 4.48/1.28 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 4.48/1.28 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 4.48/1.28 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 4.64/1.29 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 4.64/1.29 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 4.64/1.31 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 4.64/1.31 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.64/1.32 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.64/1.33 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.64/1.34 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.64/1.35 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 4.64/1.35 Prover 1: Found proof (size 31) % 4.64/1.35 Prover 1: proved (767ms) % 4.64/1.35 Prover 7: stopped % 4.64/1.35 Prover 10: stopped % 4.64/1.35 Prover 11: stopped % 4.64/1.35 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.64/1.36 Prover 4: Found proof (size 31) % 4.64/1.36 Prover 4: proved (772ms) % 4.64/1.36 Prover 8: stopped % 4.64/1.36 Prover 13: stopped % 4.64/1.36 % 4.64/1.36 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.64/1.36 % 4.64/1.36 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 4.64/1.37 Assumptions after simplification: % 4.64/1.37 --------------------------------- % 4.64/1.37 % 4.64/1.37 (ax1) % 4.64/1.39 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: array] : ! [v4: int] : % 4.64/1.39 (v4 = v2 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v2) = v3) | ~ (read(v3, v1) = v4) | ~ % 4.64/1.39 array(v0)) % 4.64/1.39 % 4.64/1.39 (ax2) % 4.64/1.39 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: array] : % 4.64/1.39 ! [v5: int] : (v2 = v1 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v3) = v4) | ~ (read(v4, v2) = v5) % 4.64/1.39 | ~ array(v0) | read(v0, v2) = v5) % 4.64/1.39 % 4.64/1.39 (co1) % 4.64/1.40 ? [v0: array] : ? [v1: array] : ? [v2: int] : ? [v3: int] : (write(v1, % 4.64/1.40 $sum(v3, 1), 3) = v0 & array(v1) & array(v0) & ! [v4: int] : ! [v5: int] % 4.64/1.40 : ( ~ ($lesseq(v5, 0) | ~ ($lesseq(v4, v3)) | ~ ($lesseq(v2, v4)) | ~ % 4.64/1.40 (read(v1, v4) = v5)) & ? [v4: int] : ? [v5: int] : ($lesseq(v5, % 4.64/1.40 0)$lesseq(-1, $difference(v3, v4)) & $lesseq(v2, v4) & read(v0, v4) = % 4.64/1.40 v5)) % 4.64/1.40 % 4.64/1.40 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 4.64/1.40 --------------------------------- % 4.64/1.40 % 4.64/1.40 Begin of proof % 4.64/1.40 | % 4.64/1.40 | DELTA: instantiating (co1) with fresh symbols all_7_0, all_7_1, all_7_2, % 4.64/1.40 | all_7_3 gives: % 4.64/1.40 | (1) write(all_7_2, $sum(all_7_0, 1), 3) = all_7_3 & array(all_7_2) & % 4.64/1.40 | array(all_7_3) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, 0) | ~ % 4.64/1.40 | ($lesseq(v0, all_7_0)) | ~ ($lesseq(all_7_1, v0)) | ~ % 4.64/1.40 | (read(all_7_2, v0) = v1)) & ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : % 4.64/1.40 | ($lesseq(v1, 0)$lesseq(-1, $difference(all_7_0, v0)) & % 4.64/1.40 | $lesseq(all_7_1, v0) & read(all_7_3, v0) = v1) % 4.64/1.40 | % 4.64/1.40 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 4.64/1.40 | (2) array(all_7_2) % 4.64/1.41 | (3) write(all_7_2, $sum(all_7_0, 1), 3) = all_7_3 % 4.64/1.41 | (4) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, 0) | ~ ($lesseq(v0, % 4.64/1.41 | all_7_0)) | ~ ($lesseq(all_7_1, v0)) | ~ (read(all_7_2, v0) = % 4.64/1.41 | v1)) % 4.64/1.41 | (5) ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ($lesseq(v1, 0)$lesseq(-1, % 4.64/1.41 | $difference(all_7_0, v0)) & $lesseq(all_7_1, v0) & read(all_7_3, % 4.64/1.41 | v0) = v1) % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | DELTA: instantiating (5) with fresh symbols all_10_0, all_10_1 gives: % 4.64/1.41 | (6) $lesseq(all_10_0, 0)$lesseq(-1, $difference(all_7_0, all_10_1)) & % 4.64/1.41 | $lesseq(all_7_1, all_10_1) & read(all_7_3, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | ALPHA: (6) implies: % 4.64/1.41 | (7) $lesseq(all_7_1, all_10_1) % 4.64/1.41 | (8) $lesseq(-1, $difference(all_7_0, all_10_1)) % 4.64/1.41 | (9) $lesseq(all_10_0, 0) % 4.64/1.41 | (10) read(all_7_3, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_2, $sum(all_7_0, 1), 3, all_7_3, % 4.64/1.41 | all_10_0, simplifying with (2), (3) gives: % 4.64/1.41 | (11) all_10_0 = 3 | ~ (read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0) % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_2, $sum(all_7_0, 1), all_10_1, 3, % 4.64/1.41 | all_7_3, all_10_0, simplifying with (2), (3), (10) gives: % 4.64/1.41 | (12) $difference(all_10_1, all_7_0) = 1 | read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = % 4.64/1.41 | all_10_0 % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | BETA: splitting (12) gives: % 4.64/1.41 | % 4.64/1.41 | Case 1: % 4.64/1.41 | | % 4.64/1.41 | | (13) read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.41 | | % 4.64/1.41 | | BETA: splitting (11) gives: % 4.64/1.41 | | % 4.64/1.41 | | Case 1: % 4.64/1.41 | | | % 4.64/1.41 | | | (14) ~ (read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0) % 4.64/1.41 | | | % 4.64/1.41 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_10_1, all_10_0, simplifying with % 4.64/1.41 | | | (13) gives: % 4.64/1.41 | | | (15) ~ ($lesseq(all_10_0, 0) | ~ ($lesseq(all_10_1, all_7_0)) | ~ % 4.64/1.41 | | | ($lesseq(all_7_1, all_10_1)) % 4.64/1.41 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | PRED_UNIFY: (10), (14) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | | (16) ~ ($difference(all_10_1, all_7_0) = 1) % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | STRENGTHEN: (8), (16) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | | (17) $lesseq(all_10_1, all_7_0) % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | BETA: splitting (15) gives: % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | Case 1: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | (18) $lesseq(1, all_10_0) % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (9), (18) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | (19) $false % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | Case 2: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | (20) ~ ($lesseq(all_10_1, all_7_0)) | ~ ($lesseq(all_7_1, % 4.64/1.42 | | | | all_10_1)) % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | BETA: splitting (20) gives: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | Case 1: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | (21) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_10_1, all_7_0)) % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (17), (21) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | (22) $false % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | CLOSE: (22) is inconsistent. % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | Case 2: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | (23) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_7_1, all_10_1)) % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (7), (23) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | (24) $false % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | CLOSE: (24) is inconsistent. % 4.64/1.42 | | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | | End of split % 4.64/1.42 | | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | End of split % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | Case 2: % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | (25) read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | | REF_CLOSE: (9), (11), (25) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 4.64/1.42 | | | % 4.64/1.42 | | End of split % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | Case 2: % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | (26) $difference(all_10_1, all_7_0) = 1 % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | REDUCE: (10), (26) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | (27) read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | REF_CLOSE: (9), (11), (27) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | End of split % 4.64/1.42 | % 4.64/1.42 End of proof % 4.64/1.42 % 4.64/1.42 Sub-proof #1 shows that the following formulas are inconsistent: % 4.64/1.42 ---------------------------------------------------------------- % 4.64/1.42 (1) all_10_0 = 3 | ~ (read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0) % 4.64/1.42 (2) read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0 % 4.64/1.42 (3) $lesseq(all_10_0, 0) % 4.64/1.42 % 4.64/1.42 Begin of proof % 4.64/1.42 | % 4.64/1.42 | BETA: splitting (1) gives: % 4.64/1.42 | % 4.64/1.42 | Case 1: % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | (4) ~ (read(all_7_3, $sum(all_7_0, 1)) = all_10_0) % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | PRED_UNIFY: (2), (4) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | (5) $false % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | CLOSE: (5) is inconsistent. % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | Case 2: % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | (6) all_10_0 = 3 % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | REDUCE: (3), (6) imply: % 4.64/1.42 | | (7) $false % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | | CLOSE: (7) is inconsistent. % 4.64/1.42 | | % 4.64/1.42 | End of split % 4.64/1.42 | % 4.64/1.42 End of proof % 4.64/1.42 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 4.64/1.43 % 4.64/1.43 863ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------