%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : LCL491+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0. % 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 : 8046.5625MB % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % CPULimit : 300s % WCLimit : 300s % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 12:54:14 PM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 12.82s 2.49s % Output : Proof 17.52s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL491+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0. % 0.00/0.04 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu % 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Fri Sep 4 14:09:59 UTC 2026 % 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime : % 0.10/0.39 OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM warning: Options -Xverify:none and -noverify were deprecated in JDK 13 and will likely be removed in a future release. % 0.65/0.70 ________ _____ % 0.65/0.70 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.65/0.70 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.65/0.70 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.65/0.70 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.65/0.70 % 0.65/0.70 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.65/0.70 (2023-06-19) % 0.65/0.70 % 0.65/0.70 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.65/0.70 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.65/0.70 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.65/0.70 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.65/0.70 % 0.65/0.70 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.65/0.70 % 0.65/0.70 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.65/0.72 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.65/0.73 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.65/0.73 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 4.16/1.31 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.32 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.38 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.38 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.38 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.39 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 4.16/1.39 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 11.23/2.26 Prover 5: Proving ... % 11.23/2.26 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.06/2.31 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.06/2.31 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.06/2.34 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.06/2.35 Prover 0: Proving ... % 12.06/2.39 Prover 2: Proving ... % 12.82/2.49 Prover 3: proved (1758ms) % 12.82/2.49 % 12.82/2.49 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 12.82/2.49 % 12.82/2.49 Prover 6: proved (1755ms) % 12.82/2.49 % 12.82/2.49 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 12.82/2.49 % 12.82/2.49 Prover 0: stopped % 13.60/2.50 Prover 2: stopped % 13.60/2.50 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 13.60/2.50 Prover 5: stopped % 13.60/2.50 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 13.60/2.50 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 13.60/2.50 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 13.60/2.50 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 14.40/2.63 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 14.40/2.63 Prover 1: Found proof (size 19) % 14.40/2.63 Prover 1: proved (1900ms) % 14.40/2.63 Prover 4: stopped % 14.40/2.64 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 14.40/2.65 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 14.40/2.67 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 14.40/2.68 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 15.15/2.77 Prover 10: stopped % 15.15/2.78 Prover 11: stopped % 15.15/2.79 Prover 13: stopped % 15.15/2.79 Prover 7: stopped % 16.40/2.95 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 16.40/2.99 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 16.40/2.99 Prover 8: stopped % 16.40/2.99 % 16.40/3.00 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 16.40/3.00 % 16.40/3.00 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 16.40/3.01 Assumptions after simplification: % 16.40/3.01 --------------------------------- % 16.40/3.01 % 16.40/3.01 (hilbert_or_2) % 16.40/3.02 ~ or_2 % 16.40/3.02 % 16.40/3.02 (or_2) % 17.04/3.07 (or_2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0, % 17.04/3.07 v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | % 17.04/3.07 is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)) | ( ~ or_2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: % 17.04/3.07 $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & % 17.04/3.07 implies(v1, v2) = v3 & is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & % 17.04/3.07 $i(v0))) % 17.04/3.07 % 17.04/3.07 (principia_r2) % 17.04/3.07 r2 % 17.04/3.07 % 17.04/3.07 (r2) % 17.04/3.08 (r2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0, v1) % 17.04/3.08 = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | % 17.04/3.08 is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)) | ( ~ r2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] % 17.04/3.08 : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, % 17.04/3.08 v2) = v3 & is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0))) % 17.04/3.08 % 17.04/3.08 (function-axioms) % 17.04/3.09 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (or(v3, % 17.04/3.09 v2) = v1) | ~ (or(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: % 17.04/3.09 $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (and(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (and(v3, v2) = % 17.04/3.09 v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | % 17.04/3.09 ~ (equiv(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (equiv(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: % 17.04/3.09 $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (implies(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ % 17.04/3.09 (implies(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 % 17.04/3.09 | ~ (not(v2) = v1) | ~ (not(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! % 17.04/3.09 [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v1) % 17.04/3.09 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v0)) % 17.04/3.09 % 17.04/3.09 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 17.04/3.09 -------------------------------------------- % 17.04/3.09 and_1, and_2, and_3, cn1, cn2, cn3, equivalence_1, equivalence_2, equivalence_3, % 17.04/3.09 hilbert_op_equiv, hilbert_op_implies_and, hilbert_op_or, implies_1, implies_2, % 17.04/3.09 implies_3, kn1, kn2, kn3, modus_ponens, modus_tollens, op_and, op_equiv, % 17.04/3.09 op_implies_and, op_implies_or, op_or, or_1, or_3, principia_modus_ponens, % 17.04/3.09 principia_op_and, principia_op_equiv, principia_op_implies_or, principia_r1, % 17.04/3.09 principia_r3, principia_r4, principia_r5, r1, r3, r4, r5, % 17.04/3.09 substitution_of_equivalents, use_substitution_of_equivalents % 17.04/3.09 % 17.04/3.09 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 17.04/3.09 --------------------------------- % 17.04/3.09 % 17.04/3.09 Begin of proof % 17.04/3.09 | % 17.04/3.09 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies: % 17.04/3.10 | (1) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : % 17.04/3.10 | (v1 = v0 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v1) | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v0)) % 17.04/3.10 | % 17.04/3.10 | BETA: splitting (r2) gives: % 17.04/3.10 | % 17.04/3.10 | Case 1: % 17.04/3.10 | | % 17.04/3.10 | | (2) r2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 17.04/3.10 | | (or(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 17.04/3.10 | | $i(v0) | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0) % 17.04/3.10 | | % 17.04/3.10 | | ALPHA: (2) implies: % 17.04/3.10 | | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0, % 17.04/3.10 | | v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | % 17.04/3.10 | | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0) % 17.04/3.10 | | % 17.04/3.10 | | BETA: splitting (or_2) gives: % 17.04/3.10 | | % 17.04/3.10 | | Case 1: % 17.04/3.10 | | | % 17.04/3.10 | | | (4) or_2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ % 17.04/3.10 | | | (or(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 17.04/3.11 | | | $i(v0) | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0) % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | | ALPHA: (4) implies: % 17.04/3.11 | | | (5) or_2 % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | | PRED_UNIFY: (5), (hilbert_or_2) imply: % 17.04/3.11 | | | (6) $false % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | | CLOSE: (6) is inconsistent. % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | Case 2: % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | | (7) ~ or_2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : % 17.04/3.11 | | | ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 % 17.04/3.11 | | | & is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0)) % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.11 | | | ALPHA: (7) implies: % 17.04/3.11 | | | (8) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: % 17.04/3.11 | | | int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 & % 17.04/3.11 | | | is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0)) % 17.04/3.11 | | | % 17.04/3.12 | | | DELTA: instantiating (8) with fresh symbols all_56_0, all_56_1, all_56_2, % 17.04/3.12 | | | all_56_3, all_56_4 gives: % 17.04/3.12 | | | (9) ~ (all_56_0 = 0) & or(all_56_4, all_56_3) = all_56_2 & % 17.04/3.12 | | | implies(all_56_3, all_56_2) = all_56_1 & is_a_theorem(all_56_1) = % 17.04/3.12 | | | all_56_0 & $i(all_56_1) & $i(all_56_2) & $i(all_56_3) & % 17.04/3.12 | | | $i(all_56_4) % 17.04/3.12 | | | % 17.04/3.12 | | | ALPHA: (9) implies: % 17.04/3.12 | | | (10) ~ (all_56_0 = 0) % 17.04/3.12 | | | (11) $i(all_56_4) % 17.04/3.12 | | | (12) $i(all_56_3) % 17.04/3.12 | | | (13) is_a_theorem(all_56_1) = all_56_0 % 17.04/3.12 | | | (14) implies(all_56_3, all_56_2) = all_56_1 % 17.04/3.12 | | | (15) or(all_56_4, all_56_3) = all_56_2 % 17.04/3.12 | | | % 17.04/3.12 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_56_4, all_56_3, all_56_2, % 17.04/3.12 | | | all_56_1, simplifying with (11), (12), (14), (15) gives: % 17.04/3.12 | | | (16) is_a_theorem(all_56_1) = 0 % 17.04/3.12 | | | % 17.04/3.12 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_56_0, 0, all_56_1, simplifying % 17.04/3.12 | | | with (13), (16) gives: % 17.04/3.13 | | | (17) all_56_0 = 0 % 17.04/3.13 | | | % 17.04/3.13 | | | REDUCE: (10), (17) imply: % 17.04/3.13 | | | (18) $false % 17.04/3.13 | | | % 17.04/3.13 | | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent. % 17.04/3.13 | | | % 17.04/3.13 | | End of split % 17.04/3.13 | | % 17.04/3.13 | Case 2: % 17.04/3.13 | | % 17.52/3.13 | | (19) ~ r2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? % 17.52/3.13 | | [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 & % 17.52/3.13 | | is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0)) % 17.52/3.13 | | % 17.52/3.13 | | ALPHA: (19) implies: % 17.52/3.13 | | (20) ~ r2 % 17.52/3.13 | | % 17.52/3.13 | | PRED_UNIFY: (20), (principia_r2) imply: % 17.52/3.13 | | (21) $false % 17.52/3.13 | | % 17.52/3.13 | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent. % 17.52/3.13 | | % 17.52/3.13 | End of split % 17.52/3.13 | % 17.52/3.13 End of proof % 17.52/3.13 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 17.52/3.13 % 17.52/3.13 2428ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------