%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SEU041+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 : n015.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 17:42:22 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 7.95s 1.84s % Output : Proof 11.48s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SEU041+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n015.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 : Thu Aug 24 00:48:50 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.21/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.21/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.21/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.21/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.21/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.21/0.60 % 0.21/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.21/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.21/0.60 % 0.21/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.21/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.21/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.21/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.21/0.60 % 0.21/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.21/0.60 % 0.21/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.21/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.21/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.21/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.21/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.21/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.21/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.21/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.21/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.58/1.06 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.58/1.07 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.09 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.09 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.09 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.09 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.10 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 5.22/1.45 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 5.22/1.47 Prover 2: Proving ... % 5.22/1.50 Prover 5: Proving ... % 5.22/1.52 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 5.22/1.54 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.22/1.54 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 5.22/1.54 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 5.22/1.57 Prover 6: Proving ... % 6.07/1.59 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.74/1.62 Prover 0: Proving ... % 7.95/1.83 Prover 3: proved (1201ms) % 7.95/1.83 % 7.95/1.84 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.95/1.84 % 7.95/1.84 Prover 2: stopped % 7.95/1.84 Prover 6: stopped % 7.95/1.84 Prover 5: stopped % 7.95/1.85 Prover 0: stopped % 7.95/1.86 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 7.95/1.86 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.95/1.86 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 7.95/1.86 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.95/1.86 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 8.81/1.92 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 8.81/1.92 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 8.81/1.92 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 8.81/1.92 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 8.95/1.94 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 9.64/2.05 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.64/2.06 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.64/2.06 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.64/2.06 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.64/2.07 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.64/2.09 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.64/2.09 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.15/2.09 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.15/2.20 Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 10.15/2.22 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.15/2.24 Prover 10: Found proof (size 15) % 10.15/2.24 Prover 10: proved (399ms) % 10.15/2.24 Prover 1: stopped % 10.15/2.24 Prover 8: stopped % 10.15/2.24 Prover 7: stopped % 10.15/2.24 Prover 13: stopped % 10.15/2.25 Prover 4: stopped % 10.15/2.25 Prover 11: stopped % 10.15/2.25 % 10.15/2.25 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.15/2.25 % 10.15/2.25 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 10.15/2.25 Assumptions after simplification: % 10.15/2.25 --------------------------------- % 10.15/2.25 % 10.15/2.26 (t102_relat_1) % 10.99/2.28 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ! [v4: $i] : (v4 = v3 % 10.99/2.28 | ~ (relation_dom_restriction(v3, v1) = v4) | ~ % 10.99/2.28 (relation_dom_restriction(v2, v0) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 10.99/2.28 | ~ subset(v0, v1) | ~ relation(v2)) % 10.99/2.28 % 10.99/2.28 (t103_relat_1) % 10.99/2.28 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ! [v4: $i] : ( ~ % 10.99/2.28 (relation_dom_restriction(v3, v0) = v4) | ~ (relation_dom_restriction(v2, % 10.99/2.28 v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ subset(v0, v1) | ~ % 10.99/2.28 relation(v2) | (relation_dom_restriction(v2, v0) = v4 & $i(v4))) % 10.99/2.28 % 10.99/2.28 (t82_funct_1) % 10.99/2.28 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: % 10.99/2.28 $i] : ? [v6: $i] : (relation_dom_restriction(v2, v0) = v3 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) % 10.99/2.28 & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & subset(v0, v1) & function(v2) & relation(v2) & (( ~ (v6 % 10.99/2.28 = v3) & relation_dom_restriction(v5, v0) = v6 & % 10.99/2.28 relation_dom_restriction(v2, v1) = v5 & $i(v6) & $i(v5)) | ( ~ (v4 = v3) % 10.99/2.28 & relation_dom_restriction(v3, v1) = v4 & $i(v4)))) % 10.99/2.28 % 10.99/2.28 (function-axioms) % 10.99/2.28 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 10.99/2.28 (relation_dom_restriction(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (relation_dom_restriction(v3, % 10.99/2.28 v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 10.99/2.29 (powerset(v2) = v1) | ~ (powerset(v2) = v0)) % 10.99/2.29 % 10.99/2.29 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 10.99/2.29 -------------------------------------------- % 10.99/2.29 antisymmetry_r2_hidden, cc1_funct_1, cc1_relat_1, cc2_funct_1, dt_k7_relat_1, % 10.99/2.29 existence_m1_subset_1, fc12_relat_1, fc13_relat_1, fc1_subset_1, fc1_xboole_0, % 10.99/2.29 fc4_funct_1, fc4_relat_1, rc1_funct_1, rc1_relat_1, rc1_subset_1, rc1_xboole_0, % 10.99/2.29 rc2_funct_1, rc2_relat_1, rc2_subset_1, rc2_xboole_0, rc3_funct_1, rc3_relat_1, % 10.99/2.29 reflexivity_r1_tarski, t1_subset, t2_subset, t3_subset, t4_subset, t5_subset, % 11.48/2.29 t6_boole, t7_boole, t8_boole % 11.48/2.29 % 11.48/2.29 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 11.48/2.29 --------------------------------- % 11.48/2.29 % 11.48/2.29 Begin of proof % 11.48/2.29 | % 11.48/2.29 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies: % 11.48/2.29 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 11.48/2.29 | (relation_dom_restriction(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ % 11.48/2.29 | (relation_dom_restriction(v3, v2) = v0)) % 11.48/2.29 | % 11.48/2.29 | DELTA: instantiating (t82_funct_1) with fresh symbols all_42_0, all_42_1, % 11.48/2.29 | all_42_2, all_42_3, all_42_4, all_42_5, all_42_6 gives: % 11.48/2.29 | (2) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_6) = all_42_3 & $i(all_42_3) % 11.48/2.29 | & $i(all_42_4) & $i(all_42_5) & $i(all_42_6) & subset(all_42_6, % 11.48/2.29 | all_42_5) & function(all_42_4) & relation(all_42_4) & (( ~ (all_42_0 % 11.48/2.29 | = all_42_3) & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_1, all_42_6) = % 11.48/2.29 | all_42_0 & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_5) = all_42_1 % 11.48/2.29 | & $i(all_42_0) & $i(all_42_1)) | ( ~ (all_42_2 = all_42_3) & % 11.48/2.29 | relation_dom_restriction(all_42_3, all_42_5) = all_42_2 & % 11.48/2.29 | $i(all_42_2))) % 11.48/2.29 | % 11.48/2.29 | ALPHA: (2) implies: % 11.48/2.29 | (3) relation(all_42_4) % 11.48/2.29 | (4) subset(all_42_6, all_42_5) % 11.48/2.29 | (5) $i(all_42_6) % 11.48/2.29 | (6) $i(all_42_5) % 11.48/2.29 | (7) $i(all_42_4) % 11.48/2.29 | (8) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_6) = all_42_3 % 11.48/2.30 | (9) ( ~ (all_42_0 = all_42_3) & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_1, % 11.48/2.30 | all_42_6) = all_42_0 & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_5) % 11.48/2.30 | = all_42_1 & $i(all_42_0) & $i(all_42_1)) | ( ~ (all_42_2 = all_42_3) % 11.48/2.30 | & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_3, all_42_5) = all_42_2 & % 11.48/2.30 | $i(all_42_2)) % 11.48/2.30 | % 11.48/2.30 | BETA: splitting (9) gives: % 11.48/2.30 | % 11.48/2.30 | Case 1: % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | (10) ~ (all_42_0 = all_42_3) & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_1, % 11.48/2.30 | | all_42_6) = all_42_0 & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, % 11.48/2.30 | | all_42_5) = all_42_1 & $i(all_42_0) & $i(all_42_1) % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | ALPHA: (10) implies: % 11.48/2.30 | | (11) ~ (all_42_0 = all_42_3) % 11.48/2.30 | | (12) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_5) = all_42_1 % 11.48/2.30 | | (13) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_1, all_42_6) = all_42_0 % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t103_relat_1) with all_42_6, all_42_5, all_42_4, % 11.48/2.30 | | all_42_1, all_42_0, simplifying with (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), % 11.48/2.30 | | (12), (13) gives: % 11.48/2.30 | | (14) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_6) = all_42_0 & % 11.48/2.30 | | $i(all_42_0) % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | ALPHA: (14) implies: % 11.48/2.30 | | (15) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_4, all_42_6) = all_42_0 % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_42_3, all_42_0, all_42_6, all_42_4, % 11.48/2.30 | | simplifying with (8), (15) gives: % 11.48/2.30 | | (16) all_42_0 = all_42_3 % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | REDUCE: (11), (16) imply: % 11.48/2.30 | | (17) $false % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | Case 2: % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | (18) ~ (all_42_2 = all_42_3) & relation_dom_restriction(all_42_3, % 11.48/2.30 | | all_42_5) = all_42_2 & $i(all_42_2) % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | ALPHA: (18) implies: % 11.48/2.30 | | (19) ~ (all_42_2 = all_42_3) % 11.48/2.30 | | (20) relation_dom_restriction(all_42_3, all_42_5) = all_42_2 % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t102_relat_1) with all_42_6, all_42_5, all_42_4, % 11.48/2.30 | | all_42_3, all_42_2, simplifying with (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), % 11.48/2.30 | | (8), (20) gives: % 11.48/2.30 | | (21) all_42_2 = all_42_3 % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | REDUCE: (19), (21) imply: % 11.48/2.30 | | (22) $false % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | | CLOSE: (22) is inconsistent. % 11.48/2.30 | | % 11.48/2.30 | End of split % 11.48/2.30 | % 11.48/2.30 End of proof % 11.48/2.30 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 11.48/2.31 % 11.48/2.31 1702ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------