%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SET786+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n003.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 : 600s % DateTime : Tue Jul 19 00:22:05 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 3.32s 1.59s % Output : Proof 3.83s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SET786+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0. % 0.03/0.12 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jul 10 05:02:59 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.52/0.59 ____ _ % 0.52/0.59 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.52/0.59 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.52/0.59 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.52/0.59 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.52/0.59 % 0.52/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.52/0.59 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.52/0.59 % 0.52/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.52/0.59 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.52/0.59 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.52/0.59 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.52/0.59 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.52/0.59 % 0.52/0.59 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.52/0.59 % 0.52/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.73/0.64 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.23/0.84 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.29/0.89 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.29/0.90 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.55/1.00 Prover 0: gave up % 1.55/1.00 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.55/1.02 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.86/1.06 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.86/1.06 Prover 1: gave up % 1.86/1.06 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.86/1.07 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.06/1.11 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.06/1.11 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.06/1.12 Prover 2: gave up % 2.06/1.12 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.06/1.13 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.06/1.14 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.06/1.14 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.24/1.16 Prover 3: gave up % 2.24/1.16 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.24/1.16 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.38/1.22 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.38/1.23 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.75/1.34 Prover 4: gave up % 2.75/1.34 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.75/1.35 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.90/1.37 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.90/1.37 Prover 5: gave up % 2.90/1.37 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.90/1.38 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.90/1.39 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.90/1.39 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.90/1.40 Prover 6: gave up % 2.90/1.40 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.90/1.41 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 2.90/1.41 Prover 7: Proving ... % 3.32/1.59 Prover 7: proved (186ms) % 3.32/1.59 % 3.32/1.59 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 3.32/1.59 % 3.32/1.59 Generating proof ... found it (size 20) % 3.83/1.86 % 3.83/1.86 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 3.83/1.86 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 3.83/1.86 | (0) ? [v0] : ( ! [v1] : ( ~ element(v1, v0) | ! [v2] : ( ~ element(v2, v1) | ~ element(v1, v2))) & ! [v1] : (element(v1, v0) | ? [v2] : (element(v2, v1) & element(v1, v2)))) % 3.83/1.86 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0 yields: % 3.83/1.86 | (1) ! [v0] : ( ~ element(v0, all_0_0_0) | ! [v1] : ( ~ element(v1, v0) | ~ element(v0, v1))) & ! [v0] : (element(v0, all_0_0_0) | ? [v1] : (element(v1, v0) & element(v0, v1))) % 3.83/1.86 | % 3.83/1.86 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 3.83/1.86 | (2) ! [v0] : ( ~ element(v0, all_0_0_0) | ! [v1] : ( ~ element(v1, v0) | ~ element(v0, v1))) % 3.83/1.86 | (3) ! [v0] : (element(v0, all_0_0_0) | ? [v1] : (element(v1, v0) & element(v0, v1))) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Introducing new symbol ex_4_0_1 defined by: % 3.83/1.87 | (4) ex_4_0_1 = all_0_0_0 % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating formula (3) with ex_4_0_1 yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (5) element(ex_4_0_1, all_0_0_0) | ? [v0] : (element(v0, ex_4_0_1) & element(ex_4_0_1, v0)) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (5), into two cases. % 3.83/1.87 |-Branch one: % 3.83/1.87 | (6) element(ex_4_0_1, all_0_0_0) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating formula (2) with ex_4_0_1 and discharging atoms element(ex_4_0_1, all_0_0_0), yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (7) ! [v0] : ( ~ element(v0, ex_4_0_1) | ~ element(ex_4_0_1, v0)) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating formula (7) with all_0_0_0 and discharging atoms element(ex_4_0_1, all_0_0_0), yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (8) ~ element(all_0_0_0, ex_4_0_1) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | From (4) and (6) follows: % 3.83/1.87 | (9) element(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | From (4) and (8) follows: % 3.83/1.87 | (10) ~ element(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Using (9) and (10) yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (11) $false % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 3.83/1.87 |-Branch two: % 3.83/1.87 | (12) ? [v0] : (element(v0, ex_4_0_1) & element(ex_4_0_1, v0)) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating (12) with all_6_0_2 yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (13) element(all_6_0_2, ex_4_0_1) & element(ex_4_0_1, all_6_0_2) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Applying alpha-rule on (13) yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (14) element(all_6_0_2, ex_4_0_1) % 3.83/1.87 | (15) element(ex_4_0_1, all_6_0_2) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating formula (2) with all_6_0_2 yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (16) ~ element(all_6_0_2, all_0_0_0) | ! [v0] : ( ~ element(v0, all_6_0_2) | ~ element(all_6_0_2, v0)) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (16), into two cases. % 3.83/1.87 |-Branch one: % 3.83/1.87 | (17) ~ element(all_6_0_2, all_0_0_0) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | From (4) and (14) follows: % 3.83/1.87 | (18) element(all_6_0_2, all_0_0_0) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Using (18) and (17) yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (11) $false % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 3.83/1.87 |-Branch two: % 3.83/1.87 | (20) ! [v0] : ( ~ element(v0, all_6_0_2) | ~ element(all_6_0_2, v0)) % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 | Instantiating formula (20) with ex_4_0_1 and discharging atoms element(all_6_0_2, ex_4_0_1), element(ex_4_0_1, all_6_0_2), yields: % 3.83/1.87 | (11) $false % 3.83/1.87 | % 3.83/1.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 3.83/1.87 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 3.83/1.87 % 3.83/1.87 1275ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------