%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : GEO191+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n008.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 23:22:04 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 7.49s 1.72s % Output : Proof 8.63s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : GEO191+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.15/0.34 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu % 0.15/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.15/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.15/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.15/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.15/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.15/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.15/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 20:56:32 EDT 2023 % 0.15/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.40/1.01 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.40/1.03 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.72/1.05 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.72/1.05 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.72/1.06 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.72/1.06 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.72/1.06 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 4.22/1.30 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.22/1.30 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.22/1.30 Prover 2: Proving ... % 4.22/1.30 Prover 5: Proving ... % 4.22/1.30 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.56/1.37 Prover 0: Proving ... % 4.56/1.38 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.56/1.42 Prover 1: gave up % 4.56/1.42 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 4.56/1.42 Prover 3: gave up % 4.56/1.43 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 4.56/1.44 Prover 6: gave up % 4.56/1.45 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 4.56/1.47 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889 % 4.56/1.48 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 5.78/1.49 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 5.78/1.50 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.78/1.51 Prover 9: Preprocessing ... % 5.78/1.58 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.57/1.59 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.06/1.70 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.06/1.70 Prover 8: gave up % 7.49/1.72 Prover 2: proved (1094ms) % 7.49/1.72 % 7.49/1.72 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.49/1.72 % 7.49/1.73 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.49/1.73 Prover 9: stopped % 7.49/1.74 Prover 5: stopped % 7.49/1.74 Prover 0: stopped % 7.49/1.74 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.49/1.74 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 7.49/1.74 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 7.49/1.75 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 7.82/1.76 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085 % 7.82/1.77 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 7.82/1.77 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 7.82/1.77 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 7.82/1.78 Prover 19: Preprocessing ... % 7.82/1.80 Prover 7: Found proof (size 23) % 7.82/1.80 Prover 7: proved (379ms) % 7.82/1.80 Prover 13: stopped % 7.82/1.80 Prover 16: stopped % 7.82/1.80 Prover 4: stopped % 7.82/1.81 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.82/1.82 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.82/1.82 Prover 10: stopped % 7.82/1.82 Prover 11: stopped % 7.82/1.84 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.41/1.85 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.41/1.86 Prover 19: stopped % 8.41/1.86 % 8.41/1.86 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 8.41/1.86 % 8.41/1.86 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 8.41/1.87 Assumptions after simplification: % 8.41/1.87 --------------------------------- % 8.41/1.87 % 8.41/1.87 (apart1) % 8.41/1.87 ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_points(v0, v0)) % 8.41/1.87 % 8.41/1.87 (ceq3) % 8.41/1.87 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, % 8.41/1.87 v1) | distinct_lines(v0, v1)) % 8.41/1.87 % 8.41/1.87 (con) % 8.63/1.90 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: % 8.63/1.90 $i] : (intersection_point(v2, v3) = v5 & intersection_point(v0, v1) = v4 & % 8.63/1.90 $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & convergent_lines(v2, % 8.63/1.90 v3) & convergent_lines(v0, v1) & ~ apart_point_and_line(v5, v1) & ~ % 8.63/1.90 apart_point_and_line(v5, v0) & (apart_point_and_line(v4, v3) | % 8.63/1.90 apart_point_and_line(v4, v2))) % 8.63/1.90 % 8.63/1.90 (con2) % 8.63/1.90 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 8.63/1.90 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 8.63/1.90 apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.90 distinct_points(v2, v3)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: % 8.63/1.90 $i] : ( ~ (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 8.63/1.90 $i(v0) | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.90 distinct_points(v2, v3)) % 8.63/1.90 % 8.63/1.90 (cu1) % 8.63/1.90 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) | ~ $i(v2) % 8.63/1.90 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_lines(v2, v3) | ~ distinct_points(v0, % 8.63/1.90 v1) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v2) | % 8.63/1.90 apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v0, v2)) % 8.63/1.90 % 8.63/1.90 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 8.63/1.90 -------------------------------------------- % 8.63/1.90 apart2, apart3, apart4, apart5, apart6, ceq1, ceq2, con1 % 8.63/1.90 % 8.63/1.90 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 8.63/1.90 --------------------------------- % 8.63/1.90 % 8.63/1.90 Begin of proof % 8.63/1.90 | % 8.63/1.90 | ALPHA: (con2) implies: % 8.63/1.90 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 8.63/1.90 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 8.63/1.90 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.90 | distinct_points(v2, v3)) % 8.63/1.91 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 8.63/1.91 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 8.63/1.91 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.91 | distinct_points(v2, v3)) % 8.63/1.91 | % 8.63/1.91 | DELTA: instantiating (con) with fresh symbols all_20_0, all_20_1, all_20_2, % 8.63/1.91 | all_20_3, all_20_4, all_20_5 gives: % 8.63/1.91 | (3) intersection_point(all_20_3, all_20_2) = all_20_0 & % 8.63/1.91 | intersection_point(all_20_5, all_20_4) = all_20_1 & $i(all_20_0) & % 8.63/1.91 | $i(all_20_1) & $i(all_20_2) & $i(all_20_3) & $i(all_20_4) & % 8.63/1.91 | $i(all_20_5) & convergent_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2) & % 8.63/1.91 | convergent_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) & ~ % 8.63/1.91 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) & ~ % 8.63/1.91 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5) & % 8.63/1.91 | (apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2) | % 8.63/1.91 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)) % 8.63/1.91 | % 8.63/1.91 | ALPHA: (3) implies: % 8.63/1.91 | (4) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5) % 8.63/1.91 | (5) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.91 | (6) convergent_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.91 | (7) convergent_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2) % 8.63/1.91 | (8) $i(all_20_5) % 8.63/1.91 | (9) $i(all_20_4) % 8.63/1.91 | (10) $i(all_20_3) % 8.63/1.91 | (11) $i(all_20_2) % 8.63/1.91 | (12) $i(all_20_1) % 8.63/1.91 | (13) $i(all_20_0) % 8.63/1.91 | (14) intersection_point(all_20_5, all_20_4) = all_20_1 % 8.63/1.91 | (15) intersection_point(all_20_3, all_20_2) = all_20_0 % 8.63/1.91 | (16) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2) | % 8.63/1.91 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3) % 8.63/1.91 | % 8.63/1.91 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ceq3) with all_20_5, all_20_4, simplifying with % 8.63/1.91 | (6), (8), (9) gives: % 8.63/1.91 | (17) distinct_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.91 | % 8.63/1.91 | BETA: splitting (16) gives: % 8.63/1.91 | % 8.63/1.91 | Case 1: % 8.63/1.91 | | % 8.63/1.91 | | (18) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2) % 8.63/1.91 | | % 8.63/1.91 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_20_3, all_20_2, all_20_1, all_20_0, % 8.63/1.91 | | simplifying with (7), (10), (11), (12), (15), (18) gives: % 8.63/1.91 | | (19) distinct_points(all_20_1, all_20_0) % 8.63/1.91 | | % 8.63/1.92 | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (12), (13), (14), (17), (19), % 8.63/1.92 | | (apart1), (cu1) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 8.63/1.92 | | % 8.63/1.92 | Case 2: % 8.63/1.92 | | % 8.63/1.92 | | (20) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3) % 8.63/1.92 | | % 8.63/1.92 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_20_3, all_20_2, all_20_1, all_20_0, % 8.63/1.92 | | simplifying with (7), (10), (11), (12), (15), (20) gives: % 8.63/1.92 | | (21) distinct_points(all_20_1, all_20_0) % 8.63/1.92 | | % 8.63/1.92 | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (12), (13), (14), (17), (21), % 8.63/1.92 | | (apart1), (cu1) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 8.63/1.92 | | % 8.63/1.92 | End of split % 8.63/1.92 | % 8.63/1.92 End of proof % 8.63/1.92 % 8.63/1.92 Sub-proof #1 shows that the following formulas are inconsistent: % 8.63/1.92 ---------------------------------------------------------------- % 8.63/1.92 (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) | ~ % 8.63/1.92 $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_lines(v2, v3) | ~ % 8.63/1.92 distinct_points(v0, v1) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v3) | % 8.63/1.92 apart_point_and_line(v1, v2) | apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) | % 8.63/1.92 apart_point_and_line(v0, v2)) % 8.63/1.92 (2) intersection_point(all_20_5, all_20_4) = all_20_1 % 8.63/1.92 (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 8.63/1.92 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | % 8.63/1.92 ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.92 distinct_points(v2, v3)) % 8.63/1.92 (4) distinct_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.92 (5) $i(all_20_5) % 8.63/1.92 (6) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5) % 8.63/1.92 (7) distinct_points(all_20_1, all_20_0) % 8.63/1.92 (8) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_points(v0, v0)) % 8.63/1.92 (9) $i(all_20_0) % 8.63/1.92 (10) convergent_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.93 (11) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 8.63/1.93 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 8.63/1.93 | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) | % 8.63/1.93 distinct_points(v2, v3)) % 8.63/1.93 (12) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.93 (13) $i(all_20_1) % 8.63/1.93 (14) $i(all_20_4) % 8.63/1.93 % 8.63/1.93 Begin of proof % 8.63/1.93 | % 8.63/1.93 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_20_1, all_20_0, all_20_5, all_20_4, % 8.63/1.93 | simplifying with (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (12), (13), (14) gives: % 8.63/1.93 | (15) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_4) | % 8.63/1.93 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_5) % 8.63/1.93 | % 8.63/1.93 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_20_1, simplifying with (13) gives: % 8.63/1.93 | (16) ~ distinct_points(all_20_1, all_20_1) % 8.63/1.93 | % 8.63/1.93 | BETA: splitting (15) gives: % 8.63/1.93 | % 8.63/1.93 | Case 1: % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | (17) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_4) % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_20_5, all_20_4, all_20_1, all_20_1, % 8.63/1.93 | | simplifying with (2), (5), (10), (13), (14), (16), (17) gives: % 8.63/1.93 | | (18) $false % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent. % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | Case 2: % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | (19) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_5) % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (11) with all_20_5, all_20_4, all_20_1, all_20_1, % 8.63/1.93 | | simplifying with (2), (5), (10), (13), (14), (16), (19) gives: % 8.63/1.93 | | (20) $false % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | | CLOSE: (20) is inconsistent. % 8.63/1.93 | | % 8.63/1.93 | End of split % 8.63/1.93 | % 8.63/1.93 End of proof % 8.63/1.93 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 8.63/1.93 % 8.63/1.93 1325ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------