%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : GRP618+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.4.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n014.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 : Thu Aug 31 01:12:34 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 76.69s 10.93s % Output : Proof 82.65s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : GRP618+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.4.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n014.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 : Mon Aug 28 22:39:30 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.18/0.59 ________ _____ % 0.18/0.59 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.18/0.59 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.18/0.59 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.18/0.59 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.18/0.59 % 0.18/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.18/0.59 (2023-06-19) % 0.18/0.59 % 0.18/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.18/0.59 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.18/0.59 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.18/0.59 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.18/0.59 % 0.18/0.59 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.18/0.59 % 0.18/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.18/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.18/0.62 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.18/0.62 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 3.20/1.15 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 3.20/1.15 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 3.77/1.18 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.77/1.18 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.77/1.18 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 3.77/1.18 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.77/1.18 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 9.12/1.93 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.12/1.94 Prover 2: Proving ... % 9.12/1.95 Prover 5: Proving ... % 9.12/1.97 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.84/2.03 Prover 6: Proving ... % 9.84/2.03 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.84/2.06 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.78/2.45 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 13.42/2.50 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 14.37/2.68 Prover 0: Proving ... % 72.94/10.36 Prover 2: stopped % 72.94/10.36 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 73.56/10.44 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 73.61/10.49 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 74.12/10.51 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 76.69/10.93 Prover 0: proved (10226ms) % 76.69/10.93 % 76.69/10.93 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 76.69/10.93 % 76.69/10.94 Prover 5: stopped % 77.40/10.94 Prover 6: stopped % 77.40/10.95 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 77.40/10.96 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 77.40/10.96 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 77.40/10.96 Prover 3: stopped % 77.40/10.96 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 77.75/11.02 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 78.18/11.04 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 78.25/11.06 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 78.25/11.07 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 78.68/11.12 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 78.68/11.12 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 78.68/11.15 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 79.03/11.17 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 79.03/11.18 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 79.03/11.20 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 81.53/11.52 Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 81.53/11.53 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 82.43/11.61 Prover 10: Found proof (size 18) % 82.43/11.61 Prover 10: proved (651ms) % 82.43/11.61 Prover 11: stopped % 82.43/11.61 Prover 7: stopped % 82.43/11.61 Prover 1: stopped % 82.43/11.61 Prover 4: stopped % 82.43/11.61 Prover 13: stopped % 82.43/11.61 Prover 8: stopped % 82.43/11.61 % 82.43/11.61 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 82.43/11.61 % 82.43/11.62 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 82.43/11.62 Assumptions after simplification: % 82.43/11.62 --------------------------------- % 82.43/11.62 % 82.43/11.62 (l1_autgroup) % 82.43/11.65 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (u1_struct_0(v2) = % 82.43/11.65 v3) | ~ (u1_struct_0(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 82.43/11.65 m1_group_2(v2, v0) | ~ l1_group_1(v0) | ~ v4_group_1(v0) | ~ % 82.43/11.65 v3_group_1(v0) | ~ v1_group_1(v0) | v1_group_3(v2, v0) | v3_struct_0(v0) | % 82.43/11.65 ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] : ? [v6: $i] : (k2_group_3(v0, v5, v4) = v6 & % 82.43/11.65 $i(v6) & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & m1_subset_1(v5, v3) & m1_subset_1(v5, v1) & % 82.43/11.65 m1_subset_1(v4, v1) & ~ r1_rlvect_1(v2, v6))) % 82.43/11.65 % 82.43/11.65 (l2_autgroup) % 82.65/11.65 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ! [v4: $i] : ! [v5: % 82.65/11.65 $i] : ! [v6: $i] : ( ~ (k2_group_3(v0, v5, v4) = v6) | ~ (u1_struct_0(v2) % 82.65/11.65 = v3) | ~ (u1_struct_0(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v5) | ~ $i(v4) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ % 82.65/11.65 $i(v0) | ~ v1_group_3(v2, v0) | ~ m1_subset_1(v5, v3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v5, % 82.65/11.65 v1) | ~ m1_subset_1(v4, v1) | ~ m1_group_2(v2, v0) | ~ l1_group_1(v0) | % 82.65/11.65 ~ v4_group_1(v0) | ~ v3_group_1(v0) | ~ v1_group_1(v0) | r1_rlvect_1(v2, % 82.65/11.65 v6) | v3_struct_0(v0)) % 82.65/11.65 % 82.65/11.65 (t1_autgroup) % 82.65/11.65 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: % 82.65/11.65 $i] : ? [v6: $i] : (u1_struct_0(v2) = v3 & u1_struct_0(v0) = v1 & $i(v5) & % 82.65/11.65 $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & m1_group_2(v2, v0) & % 82.65/11.65 l1_group_1(v0) & v4_group_1(v0) & v3_group_1(v0) & v1_group_1(v0) & ~ % 82.65/11.65 v3_struct_0(v0) & ((k2_group_3(v0, v5, v4) = v6 & $i(v6) & v1_group_3(v2, % 82.65/11.65 v0) & m1_subset_1(v5, v3) & m1_subset_1(v5, v1) & m1_subset_1(v4, v1) % 82.65/11.65 & ~ r1_rlvect_1(v2, v6)) | ( ~ v1_group_3(v2, v0) & ! [v7: $i] : ! % 82.65/11.65 [v8: $i] : ! [v9: $i] : ( ~ (k2_group_3(v0, v8, v7) = v9) | ~ $i(v8) | % 82.65/11.65 ~ $i(v7) | ~ m1_subset_1(v8, v3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v8, v1) | ~ % 82.65/11.65 m1_subset_1(v7, v1) | r1_rlvect_1(v2, v9))))) % 82.65/11.65 % 82.65/11.65 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 82.65/11.65 -------------------------------------------- % 82.65/11.65 abstractness_v1_group_1, antisymmetry_r2_hidden, cc1_funct_1, cc1_funct_2, % 82.65/11.65 cc1_group_1, cc1_group_2, cc1_relset_1, cc2_funct_1, cc5_funct_2, cc6_funct_2, % 82.65/11.65 dt_g1_group_1, dt_k1_xboole_0, dt_k1_zfmisc_1, dt_k2_group_3, dt_k2_zfmisc_1, % 82.65/11.65 dt_l1_group_1, dt_l1_struct_0, dt_m1_group_2, dt_m1_relset_1, dt_m1_subset_1, % 82.65/11.65 dt_m2_relset_1, dt_u1_group_1, dt_u1_struct_0, existence_l1_group_1, % 82.65/11.65 existence_l1_struct_0, existence_m1_group_2, existence_m1_relset_1, % 82.65/11.65 existence_m1_subset_1, existence_m2_relset_1, fc1_group_1, fc1_struct_0, % 82.65/11.65 fc1_xboole_0, free_g1_group_1, rc1_funct_1, rc1_funct_2, rc1_group_1, % 82.65/11.65 rc1_group_2, rc1_group_3, rc1_partfun1, rc1_xboole_0, rc2_funct_1, rc2_group_1, % 82.65/11.65 rc2_partfun1, rc2_xboole_0, rc3_funct_1, rc3_group_1, rc3_struct_0, % 82.65/11.65 rc5_struct_0, redefinition_m2_relset_1, reflexivity_r1_tarski, t1_subset, % 82.65/11.65 t2_subset, t3_subset, t4_subset, t5_subset, t6_boole, t7_boole, t8_boole % 82.65/11.65 % 82.65/11.65 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 82.65/11.65 --------------------------------- % 82.65/11.65 % 82.65/11.65 Begin of proof % 82.65/11.66 | % 82.65/11.66 | DELTA: instantiating (t1_autgroup) with fresh symbols all_69_0, all_69_1, % 82.65/11.66 | all_69_2, all_69_3, all_69_4, all_69_5, all_69_6 gives: % 82.65/11.66 | (1) u1_struct_0(all_69_4) = all_69_3 & u1_struct_0(all_69_6) = all_69_5 & % 82.65/11.66 | $i(all_69_1) & $i(all_69_2) & $i(all_69_3) & $i(all_69_4) & % 82.65/11.66 | $i(all_69_5) & $i(all_69_6) & m1_group_2(all_69_4, all_69_6) & % 82.65/11.66 | l1_group_1(all_69_6) & v4_group_1(all_69_6) & v3_group_1(all_69_6) & % 82.65/11.66 | v1_group_1(all_69_6) & ~ v3_struct_0(all_69_6) & % 82.65/11.66 | ((k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_69_1, all_69_2) = all_69_0 & $i(all_69_0) & % 82.65/11.66 | v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) & m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_3) & % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_5) & m1_subset_1(all_69_2, all_69_5) & % 82.65/11.66 | ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_69_0)) | ( ~ v1_group_3(all_69_4, % 82.65/11.66 | all_69_6) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ % 82.65/11.66 | (k2_group_3(all_69_6, v1, v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_5) | ~ % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(v0, all_69_5) | r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, v2)))) % 82.65/11.66 | % 82.65/11.66 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 82.65/11.66 | (2) ~ v3_struct_0(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (3) v1_group_1(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (4) v3_group_1(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (5) v4_group_1(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (6) l1_group_1(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (7) m1_group_2(all_69_4, all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (8) $i(all_69_6) % 82.65/11.66 | (9) $i(all_69_4) % 82.65/11.66 | (10) $i(all_69_2) % 82.65/11.66 | (11) $i(all_69_1) % 82.65/11.66 | (12) u1_struct_0(all_69_6) = all_69_5 % 82.65/11.66 | (13) u1_struct_0(all_69_4) = all_69_3 % 82.65/11.66 | (14) (k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_69_1, all_69_2) = all_69_0 & $i(all_69_0) & % 82.65/11.66 | v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) & m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_3) & % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_5) & m1_subset_1(all_69_2, all_69_5) & % 82.65/11.66 | ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_69_0)) | ( ~ v1_group_3(all_69_4, % 82.65/11.66 | all_69_6) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ % 82.65/11.66 | (k2_group_3(all_69_6, v1, v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_5) | ~ % 82.65/11.66 | m1_subset_1(v0, all_69_5) | r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, v2))) % 82.65/11.66 | % 82.65/11.67 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (l1_autgroup) with all_69_6, all_69_5, all_69_4, % 82.65/11.67 | all_69_3, simplifying with (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), % 82.65/11.67 | (9), (12), (13) gives: % 82.65/11.67 | (15) v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) | ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: % 82.65/11.67 | $i] : (k2_group_3(all_69_6, v1, v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) % 82.65/11.67 | & m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_3) & m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_5) & % 82.65/11.67 | m1_subset_1(v0, all_69_5) & ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, v2)) % 82.65/11.67 | % 82.65/11.67 | BETA: splitting (14) gives: % 82.65/11.67 | % 82.65/11.67 | Case 1: % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | (16) k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_69_1, all_69_2) = all_69_0 & $i(all_69_0) & % 82.65/11.67 | | v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) & m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_3) & % 82.65/11.67 | | m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_5) & m1_subset_1(all_69_2, all_69_5) & % 82.65/11.67 | | ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_69_0) % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | ALPHA: (16) implies: % 82.65/11.67 | | (17) ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_69_0) % 82.65/11.67 | | (18) m1_subset_1(all_69_2, all_69_5) % 82.65/11.67 | | (19) m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_5) % 82.65/11.67 | | (20) m1_subset_1(all_69_1, all_69_3) % 82.65/11.67 | | (21) v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) % 82.65/11.67 | | (22) k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_69_1, all_69_2) = all_69_0 % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (l2_autgroup) with all_69_6, all_69_5, all_69_4, % 82.65/11.67 | | all_69_3, all_69_2, all_69_1, all_69_0, simplifying with (2), % 82.65/11.67 | | (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), % 82.65/11.67 | | (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22) gives: % 82.65/11.67 | | (23) $false % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent. % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | Case 2: % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | (24) ~ v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! % 82.65/11.67 | | [v2: $i] : ( ~ (k2_group_3(all_69_6, v1, v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 82.65/11.67 | | $i(v0) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, % 82.65/11.67 | | all_69_5) | ~ m1_subset_1(v0, all_69_5) | r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, % 82.65/11.67 | | v2)) % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | ALPHA: (24) implies: % 82.65/11.67 | | (25) ~ v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) % 82.65/11.67 | | (26) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (k2_group_3(all_69_6, % 82.65/11.67 | | v1, v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, % 82.65/11.67 | | all_69_3) | ~ m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_5) | ~ m1_subset_1(v0, % 82.65/11.67 | | all_69_5) | r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, v2)) % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | BETA: splitting (15) gives: % 82.65/11.67 | | % 82.65/11.67 | | Case 1: % 82.65/11.67 | | | % 82.65/11.67 | | | (27) v1_group_3(all_69_4, all_69_6) % 82.65/11.67 | | | % 82.65/11.67 | | | PRED_UNIFY: (25), (27) imply: % 82.65/11.67 | | | (28) $false % 82.65/11.67 | | | % 82.65/11.67 | | | CLOSE: (28) is inconsistent. % 82.65/11.67 | | | % 82.65/11.67 | | Case 2: % 82.65/11.67 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | | (29) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : (k2_group_3(all_69_6, % 82.65/11.68 | | | v1, v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & m1_subset_1(v1, % 82.65/11.68 | | | all_69_3) & m1_subset_1(v1, all_69_5) & m1_subset_1(v0, % 82.65/11.68 | | | all_69_5) & ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, v2)) % 82.65/11.68 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | | DELTA: instantiating (29) with fresh symbols all_240_0, all_240_1, % 82.65/11.68 | | | all_240_2 gives: % 82.65/11.68 | | | (30) k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_240_1, all_240_2) = all_240_0 & % 82.65/11.68 | | | $i(all_240_0) & $i(all_240_1) & $i(all_240_2) & % 82.65/11.68 | | | m1_subset_1(all_240_1, all_69_3) & m1_subset_1(all_240_1, % 82.65/11.68 | | | all_69_5) & m1_subset_1(all_240_2, all_69_5) & ~ % 82.65/11.68 | | | r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_240_0) % 82.65/11.68 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | | ALPHA: (30) implies: % 82.65/11.68 | | | (31) ~ r1_rlvect_1(all_69_4, all_240_0) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (32) m1_subset_1(all_240_2, all_69_5) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (33) m1_subset_1(all_240_1, all_69_5) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (34) m1_subset_1(all_240_1, all_69_3) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (35) $i(all_240_2) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (36) $i(all_240_1) % 82.65/11.68 | | | (37) k2_group_3(all_69_6, all_240_1, all_240_2) = all_240_0 % 82.65/11.68 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (26) with all_240_2, all_240_1, all_240_0, % 82.65/11.68 | | | simplifying with (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (36), (37) % 82.65/11.68 | | | gives: % 82.65/11.68 | | | (38) $false % 82.65/11.68 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | | CLOSE: (38) is inconsistent. % 82.65/11.68 | | | % 82.65/11.68 | | End of split % 82.65/11.68 | | % 82.65/11.68 | End of split % 82.65/11.68 | % 82.65/11.68 End of proof % 82.65/11.68 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 82.65/11.68 % 82.65/11.68 11084ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------