%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : DAT023_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 : n004.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 22:18:54 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 4.73s 1.43s % Output : Proof 5.22s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : DAT023_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n004.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 : Thu Aug 24 14:47:53 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.19/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.19/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.19/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.19/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.19/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.19/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.19/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.19/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.61 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.19/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.19/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.40/1.05 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.40/1.05 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.09 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.09 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.09 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.09 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.09 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 6: Proving ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 2: Proving ... % 3.90/1.26 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.07/1.27 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.73/1.42 Prover 1: Found proof (size 16) % 4.73/1.43 Prover 1: proved (800ms) % 4.73/1.43 Prover 4: stopped % 4.73/1.43 Prover 2: stopped % 4.73/1.43 Prover 0: stopped % 4.73/1.43 Prover 3: stopped % 4.73/1.43 Prover 5: stopped % 4.73/1.43 Prover 6: stopped % 4.73/1.43 % 4.73/1.43 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.73/1.43 % 4.73/1.43 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 5.22/1.44 Assumptions after simplification: % 5.22/1.44 --------------------------------- % 5.22/1.44 % 5.22/1.44 (ax5) % 5.22/1.47 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: collection] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: collection] : ! % 5.22/1.47 [v4: int] : (v4 = 0 | v2 = v0 | ~ (remove(v2, v1) = v3) | ~ (in(v0, v3) = % 5.22/1.47 v4) | ~ collection(v1) | ? [v5: int] : ( ~ (v5 = 0) & in(v0, v1) = v5)) % 5.22/1.47 & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: collection] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: collection] : ( % 5.22/1.47 ~ (remove(v2, v1) = v3) | ~ (in(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ collection(v1) | ( ~ (v2 % 5.22/1.47 = v0) & in(v0, v1) = 0)) % 5.22/1.47 % 5.22/1.47 (co1) % 5.22/1.47 ? [v0: collection] : ? [v1: collection] : ? [v2: collection] : ? [v3: % 5.22/1.47 collection] : (remove(4, v3) = v0 & remove(2, v1) = v2 & remove(1, v2) = v3 % 5.22/1.47 & collection(v3) & collection(v2) & collection(v1) & collection(v0) & ! % 5.22/1.47 [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v4, 0) | ~ (in(v4, v1) = 0)) & ? [v4: int] : % 5.22/1.47 ($lesseq(v4, 2) & in(v4, v0) = 0)) % 5.22/1.47 % 5.22/1.47 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 5.22/1.47 -------------------------------------------- % 5.22/1.47 ax1, ax2, ax3, ax4 % 5.22/1.47 % 5.22/1.47 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 5.22/1.47 --------------------------------- % 5.22/1.47 % 5.22/1.47 Begin of proof % 5.22/1.47 | % 5.22/1.47 | ALPHA: (ax5) implies: % 5.22/1.48 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: collection] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: collection] % 5.22/1.48 | : ( ~ (remove(v2, v1) = v3) | ~ (in(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ collection(v1) | % 5.22/1.48 | ( ~ (v2 = v0) & in(v0, v1) = 0)) % 5.22/1.48 | % 5.22/1.48 | DELTA: instantiating (co1) with fresh symbols all_11_0, all_11_1, all_11_2, % 5.22/1.48 | all_11_3 gives: % 5.22/1.48 | (2) remove(4, all_11_0) = all_11_3 & remove(2, all_11_2) = all_11_1 & % 5.22/1.48 | remove(1, all_11_1) = all_11_0 & collection(all_11_0) & % 5.22/1.48 | collection(all_11_1) & collection(all_11_2) & collection(all_11_3) & ! % 5.22/1.48 | [v0: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v0, 0) | ~ (in(v0, all_11_2) = 0)) & ? [v0: % 5.22/1.48 | int] : ($lesseq(v0, 2) & in(v0, all_11_3) = 0) % 5.22/1.48 | % 5.22/1.48 | ALPHA: (2) implies: % 5.22/1.48 | (3) collection(all_11_2) % 5.22/1.48 | (4) collection(all_11_1) % 5.22/1.48 | (5) collection(all_11_0) % 5.22/1.48 | (6) remove(1, all_11_1) = all_11_0 % 5.22/1.48 | (7) remove(2, all_11_2) = all_11_1 % 5.22/1.48 | (8) remove(4, all_11_0) = all_11_3 % 5.22/1.48 | (9) ! [v0: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v0, 0) | ~ (in(v0, all_11_2) = 0)) % 5.22/1.48 | (10) ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(v0, 2) & in(v0, all_11_3) = 0) % 5.22/1.48 | % 5.22/1.48 | DELTA: instantiating (10) with fresh symbol all_14_0 gives: % 5.22/1.49 | (11) $lesseq(all_14_0, 2) & in(all_14_0, all_11_3) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | ALPHA: (11) implies: % 5.22/1.49 | (12) $lesseq(all_14_0, 2) % 5.22/1.49 | (13) in(all_14_0, all_11_3) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_14_0, all_11_0, 4, all_11_3, % 5.22/1.49 | simplifying with (5), (8), (13) gives: % 5.22/1.49 | (14) ~ (all_14_0 = 4) & in(all_14_0, all_11_0) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | ALPHA: (14) implies: % 5.22/1.49 | (15) in(all_14_0, all_11_0) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_14_0, all_11_1, 1, all_11_0, % 5.22/1.49 | simplifying with (4), (6), (15) gives: % 5.22/1.49 | (16) ~ (all_14_0 = 1) & in(all_14_0, all_11_1) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | ALPHA: (16) implies: % 5.22/1.49 | (17) ~ (all_14_0 = 1) % 5.22/1.49 | (18) in(all_14_0, all_11_1) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_14_0, all_11_2, 2, all_11_1, % 5.22/1.49 | simplifying with (3), (7), (18) gives: % 5.22/1.49 | (19) ~ (all_14_0 = 2) & in(all_14_0, all_11_2) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | ALPHA: (19) implies: % 5.22/1.49 | (20) ~ (all_14_0 = 2) % 5.22/1.49 | (21) in(all_14_0, all_11_2) = 0 % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | STRENGTHEN: (12), (20) imply: % 5.22/1.49 | (22) $lesseq(all_14_0, 1) % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | STRENGTHEN: (17), (22) imply: % 5.22/1.49 | (23) $lesseq(all_14_0, 0) % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (9) with all_14_0, simplifying with (21) gives: % 5.22/1.49 | (24) $lesseq(1, all_14_0) % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | COMBINE_INEQS: (23), (24) imply: % 5.22/1.49 | (25) $false % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent. % 5.22/1.49 | % 5.22/1.49 End of proof % 5.22/1.50 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 5.22/1.50 % 5.22/1.50 889ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------