↑ Up

Princess---230619.THM-Prf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : GEO206+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 : n017.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 23:22:18 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 6.07s 1.51s
% Output   : Proof 7.28s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12  % Problem  : GEO206+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.34  % Computer : n017.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 : Tue Aug 29 18:27:28 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.61  ________       _____
% 0.20/0.61  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.61  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.20/0.61  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.20/0.61  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.61  (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.61  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.61                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.61  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/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 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 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 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
% 2.36/1.02  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.36/1.02  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.07  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.07  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.07  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.07  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.07  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 4.17/1.34  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 4.59/1.34  Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.59/1.35  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 4.59/1.37  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.59/1.38  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.39/1.50  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 6.07/1.51  Prover 6: proved (878ms)
% 6.07/1.51  
% 6.07/1.51  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.07/1.51  
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 3: stopped
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 2: stopped
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 5: stopped
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 0: stopped
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 6.07/1.52  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 6.07/1.53  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 6.07/1.54  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 6.07/1.56  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.56  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.58  Prover 1: Found proof (size 19)
% 6.07/1.58  Prover 1: proved (957ms)
% 6.07/1.59  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.59  Prover 4: stopped
% 6.61/1.60  Prover 7: stopped
% 6.61/1.60  Prover 10: stopped
% 6.61/1.61  Prover 13: stopped
% 6.61/1.63  Prover 11: stopped
% 6.61/1.65  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.61/1.66  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.61/1.67  Prover 8: stopped
% 6.61/1.67  
% 6.61/1.67  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.61/1.67  
% 6.61/1.67  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 6.61/1.68  Assumptions after simplification:
% 6.61/1.68  ---------------------------------
% 6.61/1.68  
% 6.61/1.68    (apart6)
% 7.22/1.70     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: int] : (v3 = 0 |  ~
% 7.22/1.70      (convergent_lines(v0, v2) = v3) |  ~ (convergent_lines(v0, v1) = 0) |  ~
% 7.22/1.71      $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) | convergent_lines(v1, v2) = 0)
% 7.22/1.71  
% 7.22/1.71    (con)
% 7.22/1.71     ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: int] :  ? [v4: int] :  ?
% 7.22/1.71    [v5: $i] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) &  ~ (v3 = 0) & parallel_through_point(v2, v0) = v5 &
% 7.22/1.71      apart_point_and_line(v0, v1) = v3 & convergent_lines(v1, v2) = v4 &
% 7.22/1.71      distinct_lines(v1, v5) = 0 & $i(v5) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 7.22/1.71  
% 7.22/1.71    (cp1)
% 7.22/1.71     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (parallel_through_point(v1, v0)
% 7.22/1.71        = v2) |  ~ (convergent_lines(v2, v1) = 0) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0))
% 7.22/1.71  
% 7.22/1.71    (cp2)
% 7.22/1.71     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (parallel_through_point(v1, v0)
% 7.22/1.71        = v2) |  ~ (apart_point_and_line(v0, v2) = 0) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0))
% 7.22/1.71  
% 7.22/1.71    (cup1)
% 7.28/1.71     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: int] : (v3 = 0 |  ~
% 7.28/1.71      (apart_point_and_line(v0, v1) = v3) |  ~ (distinct_lines(v1, v2) = 0) |  ~
% 7.28/1.71      $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v4: any] :  ? [v5: any] :
% 7.28/1.71      (apart_point_and_line(v0, v2) = v4 & convergent_lines(v1, v2) = v5 & (v5 = 0
% 7.28/1.71          | v4 = 0)))
% 7.28/1.71  
% 7.28/1.71  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 7.28/1.71  --------------------------------------------
% 7.28/1.71  apart1, apart2, apart3, apart4, apart5, ceq1, ceq2, ceq3, con1, con2, cu1
% 7.28/1.72  
% 7.28/1.72  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 7.28/1.72  ---------------------------------
% 7.28/1.72  
% 7.28/1.72  Begin of proof
% 7.28/1.72  | 
% 7.28/1.72  | DELTA: instantiating (con) with fresh symbols all_18_0, all_18_1, all_18_2,
% 7.28/1.72  |        all_18_3, all_18_4, all_18_5 gives:
% 7.28/1.72  |   (1)   ~ (all_18_1 = 0) &  ~ (all_18_2 = 0) &
% 7.28/1.72  |        parallel_through_point(all_18_3, all_18_5) = all_18_0 &
% 7.28/1.72  |        apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_4) = all_18_2 &
% 7.28/1.72  |        convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_3) = all_18_1 &
% 7.28/1.72  |        distinct_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = 0 & $i(all_18_0) & $i(all_18_3) &
% 7.28/1.72  |        $i(all_18_4) & $i(all_18_5)
% 7.28/1.72  | 
% 7.28/1.72  | ALPHA: (1) implies:
% 7.28/1.72  |   (2)   ~ (all_18_2 = 0)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (3)   ~ (all_18_1 = 0)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (4)  $i(all_18_5)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (5)  $i(all_18_4)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (6)  $i(all_18_3)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (7)  $i(all_18_0)
% 7.28/1.72  |   (8)  distinct_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = 0
% 7.28/1.72  |   (9)  convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_3) = all_18_1
% 7.28/1.72  |   (10)  apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_4) = all_18_2
% 7.28/1.72  |   (11)  parallel_through_point(all_18_3, all_18_5) = all_18_0
% 7.28/1.72  | 
% 7.28/1.72  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (cup1) with all_18_5, all_18_4, all_18_0, all_18_2,
% 7.28/1.72  |              simplifying with (4), (5), (7), (8), (10) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  |   (12)  all_18_2 = 0 |  ? [v0: any] :  ? [v1: any] :
% 7.28/1.73  |         (apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_0) = v0 &
% 7.28/1.73  |           convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = v1 & (v1 = 0 | v0 = 0))
% 7.28/1.73  | 
% 7.28/1.73  | BETA: splitting (12) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | 
% 7.28/1.73  | Case 1:
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (13)  all_18_2 = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | REDUCE: (2), (13) imply:
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (14)  $false
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | CLOSE: (14) is inconsistent.
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | Case 2:
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (15)   ? [v0: any] :  ? [v1: any] : (apart_point_and_line(all_18_5,
% 7.28/1.73  | |             all_18_0) = v0 & convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = v1 & (v1
% 7.28/1.73  | |             = 0 | v0 = 0))
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | DELTA: instantiating (15) with fresh symbols all_27_0, all_27_1 gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (16)  apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_0) = all_27_1 &
% 7.28/1.73  | |         convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = all_27_0 & (all_27_0 = 0 |
% 7.28/1.73  | |           all_27_1 = 0)
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | ALPHA: (16) implies:
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (17)  convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = all_27_0
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (18)  apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_0) = all_27_1
% 7.28/1.73  | |   (19)  all_27_0 = 0 | all_27_1 = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | BETA: splitting (19) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | Case 1:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | |   (20)  all_27_0 = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | REDUCE: (17), (20) imply:
% 7.28/1.73  | | |   (21)  convergent_lines(all_18_4, all_18_0) = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (apart6) with all_18_4, all_18_0, all_18_3,
% 7.28/1.73  | | |              all_18_1, simplifying with (5), (6), (7), (9), (21) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | | |   (22)  all_18_1 = 0 | convergent_lines(all_18_0, all_18_3) = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | BETA: splitting (22) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | Case 1:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | |   (23)  convergent_lines(all_18_0, all_18_3) = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (cp1) with all_18_5, all_18_3, all_18_0,
% 7.28/1.73  | | | |              simplifying with (4), (6), (11), (23) gives:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | |   (24)  $false
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | CLOSE: (24) is inconsistent.
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | Case 2:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | |   (25)  all_18_1 = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | REDUCE: (3), (25) imply:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | |   (26)  $false
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | CLOSE: (26) is inconsistent.
% 7.28/1.73  | | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | End of split
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | Case 2:
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | |   (27)  all_27_1 = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.73  | | | REDUCE: (18), (27) imply:
% 7.28/1.73  | | |   (28)  apart_point_and_line(all_18_5, all_18_0) = 0
% 7.28/1.73  | | | 
% 7.28/1.74  | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (cp2) with all_18_5, all_18_3, all_18_0,
% 7.28/1.74  | | |              simplifying with (4), (6), (11), (28) gives:
% 7.28/1.74  | | |   (29)  $false
% 7.28/1.74  | | | 
% 7.28/1.74  | | | CLOSE: (29) is inconsistent.
% 7.28/1.74  | | | 
% 7.28/1.74  | | End of split
% 7.28/1.74  | | 
% 7.28/1.74  | End of split
% 7.28/1.74  | 
% 7.28/1.74  End of proof
% 7.28/1.74  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 7.28/1.74  
% 7.28/1.74  1129ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------