%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : GEG022_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n011.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 22:40:40 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 6.38s 1.78s % Output : Proof 10.71s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.12 % Problem : GEG022_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0. % 0.11/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 01:03:25 EDT 2023 % 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.62 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.62 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.62 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.62 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.62 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.62 % 0.20/0.62 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.62 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.62 % 0.20/0.62 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.62 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.62 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.62 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.62 % 0.20/0.62 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.62 % 0.20/0.63 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.64 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.67 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.67 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.51/1.15 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.15 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.21 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.21 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.21 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.51/1.21 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 4.30/1.39 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.30/1.39 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.30/1.40 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.30/1.40 Prover 0: Proving ... % 4.30/1.40 Prover 6: Proving ... % 4.30/1.40 Prover 5: Proving ... % 4.30/1.42 Prover 2: Proving ... % 6.38/1.77 Prover 3: proved (1113ms) % 6.38/1.78 % 6.38/1.78 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 6.38/1.78 % 7.10/1.78 Prover 6: stopped % 7.10/1.78 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 7.10/1.78 Prover 0: stopped % 7.10/1.78 Prover 5: stopped % 7.10/1.78 Prover 2: stopped % 7.10/1.78 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 7.10/1.79 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.10/1.79 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.16/1.80 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 7.25/1.84 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 7.25/1.85 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 7.25/1.85 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 7.25/1.86 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 7.25/1.86 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 7.25/1.90 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.25/1.90 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.25/1.91 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.57/1.94 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.57/1.94 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.57/1.95 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.57/1.95 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.14/2.24 Prover 1: Found proof (size 11) % 10.14/2.24 Prover 1: proved (1596ms) % 10.14/2.24 Prover 11: stopped % 10.14/2.25 Prover 4: stopped % 10.14/2.25 Prover 8: stopped % 10.14/2.25 Prover 10: stopped % 10.14/2.25 Prover 13: stopped % 10.14/2.25 Prover 7: stopped % 10.14/2.25 % 10.14/2.25 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.14/2.25 % 10.14/2.25 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 10.14/2.26 Assumptions after simplification: % 10.14/2.26 --------------------------------- % 10.14/2.26 % 10.14/2.26 (city_distance_2) % 10.14/2.30 city(munich) & city(saarbruecken) & city(frankfurt) & city(cologne) & % 10.14/2.30 city(berlin) & city(hamburg) & city(kiel) & ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(701, v0) & % 10.14/2.30 d(munich, saarbruecken) = 360 & d(munich, frankfurt) = 300 & d(saarbruecken, % 10.14/2.30 frankfurt) = 160 & d(saarbruecken, cologne) = 190 & d(cologne, frankfurt) % 10.14/2.30 = 150 & d(berlin, munich) = 510 & d(berlin, frankfurt) = 420 & d(berlin, % 10.14/2.30 cologne) = 480 & d(hamburg, munich) = v0 & d(hamburg, frankfurt) = 390 & % 10.14/2.30 d(hamburg, cologne) = 360 & d(hamburg, berlin) = 250 & d(hamburg, kiel) = 90 % 10.14/2.30 & ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: city] : ! [v4: int] : ! [v5: % 10.14/2.30 int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v3) = v5) | ~ (d(v1, v2) = v4) | ~ city(v3) | ~ % 10.14/2.30 city(v2) | ~ city(v1) | ? [v6: int] : ($lesseq(0, $sum($difference(v6, % 10.14/2.30 v5), v4)) & d(v2, v3) = v6)) & ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! % 10.14/2.30 [v3: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ city(v2) | ~ city(v1) | d(v2, v1) = % 10.14/2.30 v3) & ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (d(v1, v1) = v2) | ~ % 10.14/2.30 city(v1))) % 10.14/2.30 % 10.14/2.30 (function-axioms) % 10.14/2.31 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: city] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 10.14/2.31 (d(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (d(v3, v2) = v0)) % 10.14/2.31 % 10.14/2.31 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 10.14/2.31 --------------------------------- % 10.14/2.31 % 10.14/2.31 Begin of proof % 10.14/2.31 | % 10.14/2.31 | ALPHA: (city_distance_2) implies: % 10.14/2.31 | (1) city(hamburg) % 10.14/2.31 | (2) city(frankfurt) % 10.14/2.31 | (3) city(munich) % 10.71/2.32 | (4) ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(701, v0) & d(munich, saarbruecken) = 360 & % 10.71/2.32 | d(munich, frankfurt) = 300 & d(saarbruecken, frankfurt) = 160 & % 10.71/2.32 | d(saarbruecken, cologne) = 190 & d(cologne, frankfurt) = 150 & % 10.71/2.32 | d(berlin, munich) = 510 & d(berlin, frankfurt) = 420 & d(berlin, % 10.71/2.32 | cologne) = 480 & d(hamburg, munich) = v0 & d(hamburg, frankfurt) = % 10.71/2.32 | 390 & d(hamburg, cologne) = 360 & d(hamburg, berlin) = 250 & % 10.71/2.32 | d(hamburg, kiel) = 90 & ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: city] % 10.71/2.32 | : ! [v4: int] : ! [v5: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v3) = v5) | ~ (d(v1, v2) % 10.71/2.32 | = v4) | ~ city(v3) | ~ city(v2) | ~ city(v1) | ? [v6: int] : % 10.71/2.32 | ($lesseq(0, $sum($difference(v6, v5), v4)) & d(v2, v3) = v6)) & ! % 10.71/2.32 | [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ % 10.71/2.32 | city(v2) | ~ city(v1) | d(v2, v1) = v3) & ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: % 10.71/2.32 | int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (d(v1, v1) = v2) | ~ city(v1))) % 10.71/2.33 | % 10.71/2.33 | DELTA: instantiating (4) with fresh symbol all_6_0 gives: % 10.71/2.34 | (5) $lesseq(701, all_6_0) & d(munich, saarbruecken) = 360 & d(munich, % 10.71/2.34 | frankfurt) = 300 & d(saarbruecken, frankfurt) = 160 & d(saarbruecken, % 10.71/2.34 | cologne) = 190 & d(cologne, frankfurt) = 150 & d(berlin, munich) = % 10.71/2.34 | 510 & d(berlin, frankfurt) = 420 & d(berlin, cologne) = 480 & % 10.71/2.34 | d(hamburg, munich) = all_6_0 & d(hamburg, frankfurt) = 390 & d(hamburg, % 10.71/2.34 | cologne) = 360 & d(hamburg, berlin) = 250 & d(hamburg, kiel) = 90 & % 10.71/2.34 | ! [v0: city] : ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: % 10.71/2.34 | int] : ( ~ (d(v0, v2) = v4) | ~ (d(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ city(v2) | ~ % 10.71/2.34 | city(v1) | ~ city(v0) | ? [v5: int] : ($lesseq(0, % 10.71/2.34 | $sum($difference(v5, v4), v3)) & d(v1, v2) = v5)) & ! [v0: city] % 10.71/2.34 | : ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ (d(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ city(v1) | % 10.71/2.34 | ~ city(v0) | d(v1, v0) = v2) & ! [v0: city] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 % 10.71/2.34 | | ~ (d(v0, v0) = v1) | ~ city(v0)) % 10.71/2.34 | % 10.71/2.34 | ALPHA: (5) implies: % 10.71/2.34 | (6) $lesseq(701, all_6_0) % 10.71/2.34 | (7) d(hamburg, frankfurt) = 390 % 10.71/2.34 | (8) d(hamburg, munich) = all_6_0 % 10.71/2.34 | (9) d(munich, frankfurt) = 300 % 10.71/2.34 | (10) ! [v0: city] : ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ (d(v0, v1) = v2) | % 10.71/2.34 | ~ city(v1) | ~ city(v0) | d(v1, v0) = v2) % 10.71/2.34 | (11) ! [v0: city] : ! [v1: city] : ! [v2: city] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: % 10.71/2.34 | int] : ( ~ (d(v0, v2) = v4) | ~ (d(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ city(v2) | ~ % 10.71/2.35 | city(v1) | ~ city(v0) | ? [v5: int] : ($lesseq(0, % 10.71/2.35 | $sum($difference(v5, v4), v3)) & d(v1, v2) = v5)) % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (11) with hamburg, frankfurt, munich, 390, all_6_0, % 10.71/2.35 | simplifying with (1), (2), (3), (7), (8) gives: % 10.71/2.35 | (12) ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(-390, $difference(v0, all_6_0)) & d(frankfurt, % 10.71/2.35 | munich) = v0) % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (10) with munich, frankfurt, 300, simplifying with % 10.71/2.35 | (2), (3), (9) gives: % 10.71/2.35 | (13) d(frankfurt, munich) = 300 % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | DELTA: instantiating (12) with fresh symbol all_85_0 gives: % 10.71/2.35 | (14) $lesseq(-390, $difference(all_85_0, all_6_0)) & d(frankfurt, munich) = % 10.71/2.35 | all_85_0 % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | ALPHA: (14) implies: % 10.71/2.35 | (15) $lesseq(-390, $difference(all_85_0, all_6_0)) % 10.71/2.35 | (16) d(frankfurt, munich) = all_85_0 % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (function-axioms) with 300, all_85_0, munich, % 10.71/2.35 | frankfurt, simplifying with (13), (16) gives: % 10.71/2.35 | (17) all_85_0 = 300 % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.35 | REDUCE: (15), (17) imply: % 10.71/2.35 | (18) $lesseq(all_6_0, 690) % 10.71/2.35 | % 10.71/2.36 | COMBINE_INEQS: (6), (18) imply: % 10.71/2.36 | (19) $false % 10.71/2.36 | % 10.71/2.36 | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 10.71/2.36 | % 10.71/2.36 End of proof % 10.71/2.36 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 10.71/2.36 % 10.71/2.36 1732ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------