%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SET902+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n029.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 15:26:57 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 7.00s 1.86s % Output : Proof 8.85s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SET902+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0. % 0.00/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sat Aug 26 10:31:55 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.64 ________ _____ % 0.19/0.64 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.19/0.64 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.19/0.64 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.19/0.64 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.19/0.64 % 0.19/0.64 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.19/0.64 (2023-06-19) % 0.19/0.64 % 0.19/0.64 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.19/0.64 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.19/0.64 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.19/0.64 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.19/0.64 % 0.19/0.64 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.19/0.64 % 0.19/0.64 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.19/0.66 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.19/0.68 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.19/0.68 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.13/1.11 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.13/1.11 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.16 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.16 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.16 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.16 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.16 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 3.98/1.39 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.98/1.45 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.98/1.47 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.98/1.47 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.98/1.48 Prover 5: Proving ... % 3.98/1.48 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.98/1.48 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.98/1.48 Prover 6: Proving ... % 3.98/1.50 Prover 2: Proving ... % 5.70/1.69 Prover 3: gave up % 5.70/1.69 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 6.26/1.75 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 6.26/1.82 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.26/1.83 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.00/1.86 Prover 2: proved (1187ms) % 7.00/1.86 % 7.00/1.86 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.00/1.86 % 7.00/1.88 Prover 1: gave up % 7.00/1.88 Prover 0: stopped % 7.00/1.89 Prover 6: stopped % 7.00/1.89 Prover 5: stopped % 7.00/1.90 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 7.00/1.90 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.00/1.90 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.47/1.90 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 7.47/1.90 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 7.47/1.90 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 7.47/1.92 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 7.47/1.93 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 7.47/1.94 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 7.47/1.96 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 7.89/1.97 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.89/1.98 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.89/1.98 Prover 4: Found proof (size 39) % 7.89/1.98 Prover 4: proved (1305ms) % 7.89/1.99 Prover 10: stopped % 7.89/1.99 Prover 7: stopped % 7.89/1.99 Prover 16: stopped % 7.89/1.99 Prover 13: stopped % 7.89/2.00 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.89/2.01 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.89/2.01 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.89/2.01 Prover 8: stopped % 7.89/2.02 Prover 11: stopped % 7.89/2.02 % 7.89/2.02 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.89/2.02 % 7.89/2.03 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 7.89/2.03 Assumptions after simplification: % 7.89/2.03 --------------------------------- % 7.89/2.03 % 7.89/2.03 (commutativity_k2_xboole_0) % 8.48/2.08 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_union2(v1, v0) = v2) | ~ % 8.48/2.08 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | (set_union2(v0, v1) = v2 & $i(v2))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! % 8.48/2.08 [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_union2(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 8.48/2.08 | (set_union2(v1, v0) = v2 & $i(v2))) % 8.48/2.08 % 8.48/2.08 (idempotence_k2_xboole_0) % 8.48/2.08 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (set_union2(v0, v0) = v1) | ~ % 8.48/2.08 $i(v0)) % 8.48/2.08 % 8.48/2.08 (l4_zfmisc_1) % 8.48/2.09 $i(empty_set) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = v0 | v0 = % 8.48/2.09 empty_set | ~ (subset(v0, v2) = 0) | ~ (singleton(v1) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | % 8.48/2.09 ~ $i(v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ % 8.48/2.09 (subset(v0, v0) = v2) | ~ (singleton(v1) = v0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)) & % 8.48/2.09 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (subset(empty_set, v1) % 8.48/2.09 = v2) | ~ (singleton(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0)) % 8.48/2.09 % 8.48/2.09 (t43_zfmisc_1) % 8.48/2.09 $i(empty_set) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : % 8.48/2.09 (singleton(v0) = v3 & set_union2(v1, v2) = v3 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & % 8.48/2.09 $i(v0) & ( ~ (v3 = v2) | ~ (v1 = empty_set)) & ( ~ (v3 = v1) | ~ (v2 = % 8.48/2.09 v1)) & ( ~ (v3 = v1) | ~ (v2 = empty_set))) % 8.48/2.09 % 8.48/2.09 (t7_xboole_1) % 8.66/2.10 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_union2(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ % 8.66/2.10 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | subset(v0, v2) = 0) % 8.66/2.10 % 8.66/2.10 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 8.66/2.10 -------------------------------------------- % 8.66/2.10 fc1_xboole_0, fc2_xboole_0, fc3_xboole_0, l1_zfmisc_1, rc1_xboole_0, % 8.66/2.10 rc2_xboole_0, reflexivity_r1_tarski % 8.66/2.10 % 8.66/2.10 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 8.66/2.10 --------------------------------- % 8.66/2.10 % 8.66/2.10 Begin of proof % 8.66/2.10 | % 8.66/2.10 | ALPHA: (commutativity_k2_xboole_0) implies: % 8.66/2.10 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_union2(v1, v0) = v2) % 8.66/2.10 | | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | (set_union2(v0, v1) = v2 & $i(v2))) % 8.66/2.10 | % 8.66/2.10 | ALPHA: (l4_zfmisc_1) implies: % 8.66/2.10 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = v0 | v0 = empty_set | % 8.66/2.10 | ~ (subset(v0, v2) = 0) | ~ (singleton(v1) = v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 8.66/2.10 | $i(v0)) % 8.66/2.10 | % 8.66/2.10 | ALPHA: (t43_zfmisc_1) implies: % 8.66/2.11 | (3) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : (singleton(v0) % 8.66/2.11 | = v3 & set_union2(v1, v2) = v3 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & % 8.66/2.11 | ( ~ (v3 = v2) | ~ (v1 = empty_set)) & ( ~ (v3 = v1) | ~ (v2 = v1)) % 8.66/2.11 | & ( ~ (v3 = v1) | ~ (v2 = empty_set))) % 8.66/2.11 | % 8.66/2.11 | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_16_0, all_16_1, all_16_2, % 8.66/2.11 | all_16_3 gives: % 8.66/2.11 | (4) singleton(all_16_3) = all_16_0 & set_union2(all_16_2, all_16_1) = % 8.66/2.11 | all_16_0 & $i(all_16_0) & $i(all_16_1) & $i(all_16_2) & $i(all_16_3) & % 8.66/2.11 | ( ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_1) | ~ (all_16_2 = empty_set)) & ( ~ (all_16_0 % 8.66/2.11 | = all_16_2) | ~ (all_16_1 = all_16_2)) & ( ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_2) % 8.66/2.11 | | ~ (all_16_1 = empty_set)) % 8.66/2.11 | % 8.66/2.11 | ALPHA: (4) implies: % 8.66/2.12 | (5) $i(all_16_3) % 8.66/2.12 | (6) $i(all_16_2) % 8.66/2.12 | (7) $i(all_16_1) % 8.66/2.12 | (8) set_union2(all_16_2, all_16_1) = all_16_0 % 8.66/2.12 | (9) singleton(all_16_3) = all_16_0 % 8.66/2.12 | (10) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_2) | ~ (all_16_1 = empty_set) % 8.66/2.12 | (11) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_2) | ~ (all_16_1 = all_16_2) % 8.66/2.12 | (12) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_1) | ~ (all_16_2 = empty_set) % 8.66/2.12 | % 8.66/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_16_1, all_16_2, all_16_0, simplifying % 8.66/2.12 | with (6), (7), (8) gives: % 8.66/2.12 | (13) set_union2(all_16_1, all_16_2) = all_16_0 & $i(all_16_0) % 8.66/2.12 | % 8.66/2.12 | ALPHA: (13) implies: % 8.66/2.12 | (14) set_union2(all_16_1, all_16_2) = all_16_0 % 8.66/2.12 | % 8.66/2.12 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t7_xboole_1) with all_16_2, all_16_1, all_16_0, % 8.66/2.12 | simplifying with (6), (7), (8) gives: % 8.66/2.12 | (15) subset(all_16_2, all_16_0) = 0 % 8.66/2.12 | % 8.66/2.13 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t7_xboole_1) with all_16_1, all_16_2, all_16_0, % 8.66/2.13 | simplifying with (6), (7), (14) gives: % 8.66/2.13 | (16) subset(all_16_1, all_16_0) = 0 % 8.66/2.13 | % 8.66/2.13 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_16_2, all_16_3, all_16_0, simplifying % 8.66/2.13 | with (5), (6), (9), (15) gives: % 8.66/2.13 | (17) all_16_0 = all_16_2 | all_16_2 = empty_set % 8.66/2.13 | % 8.66/2.13 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_16_1, all_16_3, all_16_0, simplifying % 8.66/2.13 | with (5), (7), (9), (16) gives: % 8.66/2.13 | (18) all_16_0 = all_16_1 | all_16_1 = empty_set % 8.66/2.13 | % 8.66/2.13 | BETA: splitting (10) gives: % 8.66/2.13 | % 8.66/2.13 | Case 1: % 8.66/2.13 | | % 8.66/2.13 | | (19) ~ (all_16_1 = empty_set) % 8.66/2.13 | | % 8.66/2.13 | | BETA: splitting (18) gives: % 8.66/2.13 | | % 8.66/2.13 | | Case 1: % 8.66/2.13 | | | % 8.66/2.13 | | | (20) all_16_1 = empty_set % 8.66/2.13 | | | % 8.66/2.13 | | | REDUCE: (19), (20) imply: % 8.66/2.13 | | | (21) $false % 8.84/2.13 | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent. % 8.84/2.13 | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | Case 2: % 8.84/2.13 | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | | (22) all_16_0 = all_16_1 % 8.84/2.13 | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | | BETA: splitting (11) gives: % 8.84/2.13 | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | | Case 1: % 8.84/2.13 | | | | % 8.84/2.13 | | | | (23) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_2) % 8.84/2.13 | | | | % 8.85/2.13 | | | | REDUCE: (22), (23) imply: % 8.85/2.13 | | | | (24) ~ (all_16_1 = all_16_2) % 8.85/2.13 | | | | % 8.85/2.13 | | | | BETA: splitting (17) gives: % 8.85/2.13 | | | | % 8.85/2.13 | | | | Case 1: % 8.85/2.13 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | (25) all_16_2 = empty_set % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | BETA: splitting (12) gives: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | Case 1: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | (26) ~ (all_16_2 = empty_set) % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | REDUCE: (25), (26) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | (27) $false % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | Case 2: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | (28) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_1) % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | REDUCE: (22), (28) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | (29) $false % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | CLOSE: (29) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | End of split % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | Case 2: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | (30) all_16_0 = all_16_2 % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | COMBINE_EQS: (22), (30) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | (31) all_16_1 = all_16_2 % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | REDUCE: (24), (31) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | (32) $false % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | CLOSE: (32) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.14 | | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | End of split % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | Case 2: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | (33) all_16_0 = all_16_2 % 8.85/2.14 | | | | (34) ~ (all_16_1 = all_16_2) % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | COMBINE_EQS: (22), (33) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | (35) all_16_1 = all_16_2 % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | REDUCE: (34), (35) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | | (36) $false % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | | CLOSE: (36) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.14 | | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | End of split % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | End of split % 8.85/2.14 | | % 8.85/2.14 | Case 2: % 8.85/2.14 | | % 8.85/2.14 | | (37) all_16_1 = empty_set % 8.85/2.14 | | (38) ~ (all_16_0 = all_16_2) % 8.85/2.14 | | % 8.85/2.14 | | REDUCE: (14), (37) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | (39) set_union2(empty_set, all_16_2) = all_16_0 % 8.85/2.14 | | % 8.85/2.14 | | BETA: splitting (17) gives: % 8.85/2.14 | | % 8.85/2.14 | | Case 1: % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | (40) all_16_2 = empty_set % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | REDUCE: (38), (40) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | (41) ~ (all_16_0 = empty_set) % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | REDUCE: (39), (40) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | (42) set_union2(empty_set, empty_set) = all_16_0 % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.14 | | | REDUCE: (6), (40) imply: % 8.85/2.14 | | | (43) $i(empty_set) % 8.85/2.14 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (idempotence_k2_xboole_0) with empty_set, % 8.85/2.15 | | | all_16_0, simplifying with (42), (43) gives: % 8.85/2.15 | | | (44) all_16_0 = empty_set % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | REDUCE: (41), (44) imply: % 8.85/2.15 | | | (45) $false % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | CLOSE: (45) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | Case 2: % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | (46) all_16_0 = all_16_2 % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | REDUCE: (38), (46) imply: % 8.85/2.15 | | | (47) $false % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | | CLOSE: (47) is inconsistent. % 8.85/2.15 | | | % 8.85/2.15 | | End of split % 8.85/2.15 | | % 8.85/2.15 | End of split % 8.85/2.15 | % 8.85/2.15 End of proof % 8.85/2.15 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 8.85/2.15 % 8.85/2.15 1504ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------