%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : NUM843+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n027.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 11:50:20 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 8.55s 1.88s % Output : Proof 10.01s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : NUM843+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v4.1.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Fri Aug 25 15:42:33 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.19/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.19/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.19/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.19/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.19/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.19/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.19/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.19/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.19/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.19/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.19/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 3.01/1.11 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.11 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.14 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.14 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.14 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.14 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.01/1.14 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 5.74/1.62 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.09/1.64 Prover 5: Proving ... % 7.21/1.67 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.21/1.68 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.21/1.68 Prover 6: Proving ... % 7.21/1.70 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.21/1.71 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.65/1.72 Prover 2: Proving ... % 7.96/1.77 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.55/1.85 Prover 0: Proving ... % 8.55/1.87 Prover 3: proved (1254ms) % 8.55/1.88 % 8.55/1.88 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 8.55/1.88 % 8.55/1.88 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 8.55/1.88 Prover 2: stopped % 8.55/1.88 Prover 6: stopped % 8.55/1.88 Prover 5: stopped % 8.55/1.88 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 8.79/1.88 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 8.79/1.88 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 8.79/1.89 Prover 0: stopped % 8.79/1.91 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 9.23/1.97 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 9.23/1.98 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 9.23/1.99 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 9.23/2.01 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 9.67/2.01 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 9.67/2.03 Prover 1: Found proof (size 33) % 9.67/2.03 Prover 1: proved (1414ms) % 9.67/2.03 Prover 4: stopped % 9.67/2.04 Prover 11: stopped % 9.67/2.05 Prover 7: stopped % 10.01/2.07 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 10.01/2.07 Prover 13: stopped % 10.01/2.09 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.01/2.09 Prover 10: stopped % 10.01/2.10 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 10.01/2.12 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.01/2.13 Prover 8: stopped % 10.01/2.13 % 10.01/2.13 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.01/2.13 % 10.01/2.13 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 10.01/2.14 Assumptions after simplification: % 10.01/2.14 --------------------------------- % 10.01/2.14 % 10.01/2.14 (ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 0)) % 10.01/2.16 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | v1 = v0 | ~ (less(v0, % 10.01/2.16 v1) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | greater(v0, v1) = 0) % 10.01/2.16 % 10.01/2.16 (def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 11), 1)) % 10.01/2.17 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (greater(v1, v0) = v2) % 10.01/2.17 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (vplus(v0, v3) = v1) | ~ % 10.01/2.17 $i(v3))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (greater(v1, v0) = 0) | ~ % 10.01/2.17 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : (vplus(v0, v2) = v1 & $i(v2))) % 10.01/2.17 % 10.01/2.17 (def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 17), 1)) % 10.01/2.17 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (leq(v1, v0) = v2) | % 10.01/2.17 ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ( ~ (v1 = v0) & ? [v3: int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & % 10.01/2.17 less(v1, v0) = v3))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 10.01/2.17 (leq(v1, v0) = 0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | less(v1, v0) = 0) % 10.01/2.17 % 10.01/2.17 (holds(244, 394, 0)) % 10.01/2.17 $i(vd391) & $i(vd390) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & greater(vd390, vd391) = % 10.01/2.17 v0) % 10.01/2.17 % 10.01/2.17 (holds(conjunct2(243), 393, 0)) % 10.01/2.17 $i(vd391) & $i(vd390) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(vd390, vd391) = v0) % 10.01/2.17 % 10.01/2.17 (function-axioms) % 10.01/2.18 ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! % 10.01/2.18 [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (geq(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (geq(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: % 10.01/2.18 MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] % 10.01/2.18 : (v1 = v0 | ~ (greater(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (greater(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: % 10.01/2.18 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (vplus(v3, v2) % 10.01/2.18 = v1) | ~ (vplus(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: % 10.01/2.18 MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (less(v3, v2) % 10.01/2.18 = v1) | ~ (less(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: % 10.01/2.18 MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (leq(v3, v2) % 10.01/2.18 = v1) | ~ (leq(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : % 10.01/2.18 (v1 = v0 | ~ (vskolem2(v2) = v1) | ~ (vskolem2(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! % 10.01/2.18 [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (vsucc(v2) = v1) | ~ (vsucc(v2) = v0)) % 10.01/2.18 % 10.01/2.18 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 10.01/2.18 -------------------------------------------- % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(12, 0), 0), ass(cond(140, 0), 0), ass(cond(147, 0), 0), ass(cond(158, % 10.01/2.18 0), 0), ass(cond(163, 0), 0), ass(cond(168, 0), 0), ass(cond(184, 0), 0), % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(189, 0), 0), ass(cond(20, 0), 0), ass(cond(209, 0), 0), ass(cond(223, % 10.01/2.18 0), 0), ass(cond(228, 0), 0), ass(cond(234, 0), 0), ass(cond(33, 0), 0), % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(43, 0), 0), ass(cond(52, 0), 0), ass(cond(6, 0), 0), ass(cond(61, 0), % 10.01/2.18 0), ass(cond(73, 0), 0), ass(cond(81, 0), 0), ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 1), % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 2), ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 3), ass(cond(goal(177), 0), % 10.01/2.18 0), ass(cond(goal(193), 0), 0), ass(cond(goal(193), 0), 1), % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(goal(193), 0), 2), ass(cond(goal(202), 0), 0), ass(cond(goal(202), 0), % 10.01/2.18 1), ass(cond(goal(202), 0), 2), ass(cond(goal(216), 0), 0), ass(cond(goal(88), % 10.01/2.18 0), 0), ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 1), ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 2), % 10.01/2.18 ass(cond(goal(88), 0), 3), def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 12), 1), % 10.01/2.18 def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 16), 1), holds(conjunct1(243), 392, 0), % 10.01/2.18 qu(antec(axiom(3)), imp(antec(axiom(3)))), qu(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 3), % 10.01/2.18 and(holds(definiens(29), 45, 0), holds(definiens(29), 44, 0))), % 10.01/2.18 qu(restrictor(axiom(1)), holds(scope(axiom(1)), 2, 0)) % 10.01/2.18 % 10.01/2.18 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 10.01/2.18 --------------------------------- % 10.01/2.18 % 10.01/2.18 Begin of proof % 10.01/2.18 | % 10.01/2.18 | ALPHA: (holds(conjunct2(243), 393, 0)) implies: % 10.01/2.18 | (1) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(vd390, vd391) = v0) % 10.01/2.18 | % 10.01/2.18 | ALPHA: (def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 17), 1)) implies: % 10.01/2.18 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (leq(v1, v0) = % 10.01/2.18 | v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ( ~ (v1 = v0) & ? [v3: int] : ( ~ % 10.01/2.18 | (v3 = 0) & less(v1, v0) = v3))) % 10.01/2.18 | % 10.01/2.18 | ALPHA: (def(cond(conseq(axiom(3)), 11), 1)) implies: % 10.01/2.19 | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (greater(v1, % 10.01/2.19 | v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (vplus(v0, % 10.01/2.19 | v3) = v1) | ~ $i(v3))) % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | ALPHA: (holds(244, 394, 0)) implies: % 10.01/2.19 | (4) $i(vd390) % 10.01/2.19 | (5) $i(vd391) % 10.01/2.19 | (6) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & greater(vd390, vd391) = v0) % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies: % 10.01/2.19 | (7) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : % 10.01/2.19 | ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (greater(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (greater(v3, % 10.01/2.19 | v2) = v0)) % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | DELTA: instantiating (1) with fresh symbol all_41_0 gives: % 10.01/2.19 | (8) ~ (all_41_0 = 0) & leq(vd390, vd391) = all_41_0 % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | ALPHA: (8) implies: % 10.01/2.19 | (9) ~ (all_41_0 = 0) % 10.01/2.19 | (10) leq(vd390, vd391) = all_41_0 % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | DELTA: instantiating (6) with fresh symbol all_43_0 gives: % 10.01/2.19 | (11) ~ (all_43_0 = 0) & greater(vd390, vd391) = all_43_0 % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | ALPHA: (11) implies: % 10.01/2.19 | (12) ~ (all_43_0 = 0) % 10.01/2.19 | (13) greater(vd390, vd391) = all_43_0 % 10.01/2.19 | % 10.01/2.19 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with vd391, vd390, all_41_0, simplifying with % 10.01/2.19 | (4), (5), (10) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | (14) all_41_0 = 0 | ( ~ (vd391 = vd390) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & % 10.01/2.20 | less(vd390, vd391) = v0)) % 10.01/2.20 | % 10.01/2.20 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with vd391, vd390, all_43_0, simplifying with % 10.01/2.20 | (4), (5), (13) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | (15) all_43_0 = 0 | ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ (vplus(vd391, v0) = vd390) | ~ % 10.01/2.20 | $i(v0)) % 10.01/2.20 | % 10.01/2.20 | BETA: splitting (14) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | % 10.01/2.20 | Case 1: % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | (16) all_41_0 = 0 % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | REDUCE: (9), (16) imply: % 10.01/2.20 | | (17) $false % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | Case 2: % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | (18) ~ (vd391 = vd390) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & less(vd390, % 10.01/2.20 | | vd391) = v0) % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | ALPHA: (18) implies: % 10.01/2.20 | | (19) ~ (vd391 = vd390) % 10.01/2.20 | | (20) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & less(vd390, vd391) = v0) % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | BETA: splitting (15) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | | % 10.01/2.20 | | Case 1: % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | (21) all_43_0 = 0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | REDUCE: (12), (21) imply: % 10.01/2.20 | | | (22) $false % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | CLOSE: (22) is inconsistent. % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | Case 2: % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | DELTA: instantiating (20) with fresh symbol all_72_0 gives: % 10.01/2.20 | | | (23) ~ (all_72_0 = 0) & less(vd390, vd391) = all_72_0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | ALPHA: (23) implies: % 10.01/2.20 | | | (24) ~ (all_72_0 = 0) % 10.01/2.20 | | | (25) less(vd390, vd391) = all_72_0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ass(cond(goal(130), 0), 0)) with vd390, vd391, % 10.01/2.20 | | | all_72_0, simplifying with (4), (5), (25) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | | | (26) all_72_0 = 0 | vd391 = vd390 | greater(vd390, vd391) = 0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | BETA: splitting (26) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | Case 1: % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | | (27) greater(vd390, vd391) = 0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (7) with all_43_0, 0, vd391, vd390, % 10.01/2.20 | | | | simplifying with (13), (27) gives: % 10.01/2.20 | | | | (28) all_43_0 = 0 % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | | REDUCE: (12), (28) imply: % 10.01/2.20 | | | | (29) $false % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | | CLOSE: (29) is inconsistent. % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.20 | | | Case 2: % 10.01/2.20 | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | (30) all_72_0 = 0 | vd391 = vd390 % 10.01/2.21 | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | BETA: splitting (30) gives: % 10.01/2.21 | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | Case 1: % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | (31) all_72_0 = 0 % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | REDUCE: (24), (31) imply: % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | (32) $false % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | CLOSE: (32) is inconsistent. % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | Case 2: % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | (33) vd391 = vd390 % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | REDUCE: (19), (33) imply: % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | (34) $false % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | CLOSE: (34) is inconsistent. % 10.01/2.21 | | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | | End of split % 10.01/2.21 | | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | | End of split % 10.01/2.21 | | | % 10.01/2.21 | | End of split % 10.01/2.21 | | % 10.01/2.21 | End of split % 10.01/2.21 | % 10.01/2.21 End of proof % 10.01/2.21 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 10.01/2.21 % 10.01/2.21 1608ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------