%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SEU153+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n032.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 17:42:50 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 10.05s 2.11s % Output : Proof 12.89s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.09 % Problem : SEU153+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0. % 0.00/0.09 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.08/0.29 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu % 0.08/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.08/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.08/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % DateTime : Wed Aug 23 17:19:11 EDT 2023 % 0.08/0.29 % CPUTime : % 0.13/0.49 ________ _____ % 0.13/0.49 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.13/0.49 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.13/0.49 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.13/0.49 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.13/0.49 % 0.13/0.49 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.13/0.49 (2023-06-19) % 0.13/0.49 % 0.13/0.49 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.13/0.49 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.13/0.49 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.13/0.49 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.13/0.49 % 0.13/0.49 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.13/0.49 % 0.13/0.49 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.13/0.50 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.13/0.51 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.13/0.51 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.60/0.98 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/0.98 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.02 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.02 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.02 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.02 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.60/1.02 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 8.20/1.76 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.20/1.77 Prover 5: Proving ... % 8.67/1.82 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.67/1.85 Prover 6: Proving ... % 9.12/1.88 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.12/1.89 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 9.12/1.91 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.80/1.97 Prover 2: Proving ... % 10.05/1.99 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.05/2.08 Prover 0: Proving ... % 10.05/2.11 Prover 5: proved (1596ms) % 10.05/2.11 % 10.05/2.11 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.05/2.11 % 10.05/2.11 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 10.05/2.11 Prover 2: stopped % 10.05/2.12 Prover 0: stopped % 10.05/2.13 Prover 3: stopped % 10.05/2.14 Prover 6: stopped % 10.88/2.15 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 10.88/2.15 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 10.88/2.15 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 10.88/2.15 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 11.16/2.20 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 11.16/2.20 Prover 1: Found proof (size 14) % 11.16/2.20 Prover 1: proved (1697ms) % 11.16/2.21 Prover 4: stopped % 11.16/2.21 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 11.16/2.22 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 11.69/2.24 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 11.69/2.24 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 11.69/2.25 Prover 10: stopped % 12.01/2.27 Prover 7: stopped % 12.01/2.30 Prover 11: stopped % 12.01/2.30 Prover 13: stopped % 12.47/2.36 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 12.63/2.38 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.63/2.39 Prover 8: stopped % 12.63/2.39 % 12.63/2.39 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 12.63/2.39 % 12.63/2.39 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 12.63/2.40 Assumptions after simplification: % 12.63/2.40 --------------------------------- % 12.63/2.40 % 12.63/2.40 (d1_tarski) % 12.63/2.42 ? [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = v0 | ~ (singleton(v1) = v2) | % 12.63/2.42 ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: any] : (in(v3, v0) = v4 & % 12.63/2.42 $i(v3) & ( ~ (v4 = 0) | ~ (v3 = v1)) & (v4 = 0 | v3 = v1))) & ! [v0: $i] % 12.63/2.42 : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (singleton(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ( ! [v2: % 12.63/2.42 $i] : (v2 = v0 | ~ (in(v2, v1) = 0) | ~ $i(v2)) & ! [v2: int] : (v2 = % 12.63/2.42 0 | ~ (in(v0, v1) = v2)))) % 12.63/2.42 % 12.63/2.42 (l25_zfmisc_1) % 12.63/2.43 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : (disjoint(v2, v1) = 0 & % 12.63/2.43 singleton(v0) = v2 & in(v0, v1) = 0 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0)) % 12.63/2.43 % 12.63/2.43 (symmetry_r1_xboole_0) % 12.63/2.43 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (disjoint(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) % 12.63/2.43 | disjoint(v1, v0) = 0) % 12.63/2.43 % 12.63/2.43 (t3_xboole_0) % 12.89/2.43 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (disjoint(v0, v1) = % 12.89/2.43 v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v3: $i] : (in(v3, v1) = 0 & in(v3, v0) = % 12.89/2.43 0 & $i(v3))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (disjoint(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ % 12.89/2.43 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (in(v2, v0) = 0) | ~ $i(v2) | ? % 12.89/2.43 [v3: int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & in(v2, v1) = v3))) % 12.89/2.43 % 12.89/2.43 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 12.89/2.43 -------------------------------------------- % 12.89/2.43 antisymmetry_r2_hidden, antisymmetry_r2_xboole_0, commutativity_k2_tarski, % 12.89/2.43 commutativity_k2_xboole_0, commutativity_k3_xboole_0, d10_xboole_0, d1_xboole_0, % 12.89/2.43 d1_zfmisc_1, d2_tarski, d2_xboole_0, d3_tarski, d3_xboole_0, d4_xboole_0, % 12.89/2.43 d7_xboole_0, d8_xboole_0, dt_k1_tarski, dt_k1_xboole_0, dt_k1_zfmisc_1, % 12.89/2.43 dt_k2_tarski, dt_k2_xboole_0, dt_k3_xboole_0, dt_k4_xboole_0, fc1_xboole_0, % 12.89/2.43 fc2_xboole_0, fc3_xboole_0, idempotence_k2_xboole_0, idempotence_k3_xboole_0, % 12.89/2.43 irreflexivity_r2_xboole_0, l1_zfmisc_1, l23_zfmisc_1, l2_zfmisc_1, l32_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 l3_zfmisc_1, l4_zfmisc_1, rc1_xboole_0, rc2_xboole_0, reflexivity_r1_tarski, % 12.89/2.43 t10_zfmisc_1, t12_xboole_1, t17_xboole_1, t19_xboole_1, t1_boole, t1_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 t1_zfmisc_1, t26_xboole_1, t28_xboole_1, t2_boole, t2_tarski, t2_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 t33_xboole_1, t36_xboole_1, t37_xboole_1, t39_xboole_1, t3_boole, t3_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 t40_xboole_1, t45_xboole_1, t48_xboole_1, t4_boole, t4_xboole_0, t60_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 t63_xboole_1, t69_enumset1, t6_boole, t6_zfmisc_1, t7_boole, t7_xboole_1, % 12.89/2.43 t83_xboole_1, t8_boole, t8_xboole_1, t8_zfmisc_1, t9_zfmisc_1 % 12.89/2.43 % 12.89/2.43 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 12.89/2.43 --------------------------------- % 12.89/2.43 % 12.89/2.43 Begin of proof % 12.89/2.43 | % 12.89/2.43 | ALPHA: (d1_tarski) implies: % 12.89/2.43 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (singleton(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 12.89/2.43 | $i(v0) | ( ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = v0 | ~ (in(v2, v1) = 0) | ~ $i(v2)) & % 12.89/2.43 | ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (in(v0, v1) = v2)))) % 12.89/2.43 | % 12.89/2.43 | ALPHA: (t3_xboole_0) implies: % 12.89/2.44 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (disjoint(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 12.89/2.44 | $i(v0) | ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (in(v2, v0) = 0) | ~ $i(v2) | ? [v3: % 12.89/2.44 | int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & in(v2, v1) = v3))) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | DELTA: instantiating (l25_zfmisc_1) with fresh symbols all_78_0, all_78_1, % 12.89/2.44 | all_78_2 gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (3) disjoint(all_78_0, all_78_1) = 0 & singleton(all_78_2) = all_78_0 & % 12.89/2.44 | in(all_78_2, all_78_1) = 0 & $i(all_78_0) & $i(all_78_1) & $i(all_78_2) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | ALPHA: (3) implies: % 12.89/2.44 | (4) $i(all_78_2) % 12.89/2.44 | (5) $i(all_78_1) % 12.89/2.44 | (6) $i(all_78_0) % 12.89/2.44 | (7) in(all_78_2, all_78_1) = 0 % 12.89/2.44 | (8) singleton(all_78_2) = all_78_0 % 12.89/2.44 | (9) disjoint(all_78_0, all_78_1) = 0 % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_78_2, all_78_0, simplifying with (4), % 12.89/2.44 | (6), (8) gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (10) ! [v0: any] : (v0 = all_78_2 | ~ (in(v0, all_78_0) = 0) | ~ $i(v0)) % 12.89/2.44 | & ! [v0: int] : (v0 = 0 | ~ (in(all_78_2, all_78_0) = v0)) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | ALPHA: (10) implies: % 12.89/2.44 | (11) ! [v0: int] : (v0 = 0 | ~ (in(all_78_2, all_78_0) = v0)) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (symmetry_r1_xboole_0) with all_78_0, all_78_1, % 12.89/2.44 | simplifying with (5), (6), (9) gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (12) disjoint(all_78_1, all_78_0) = 0 % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_78_1, all_78_0, simplifying with (5), % 12.89/2.44 | (6), (12) gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (13) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ (in(v0, all_78_1) = 0) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v1: int] : % 12.89/2.44 | ( ~ (v1 = 0) & in(v0, all_78_0) = v1)) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (13) with all_78_2, simplifying with (4), (7) % 12.89/2.44 | gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (14) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & in(all_78_2, all_78_0) = v0) % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | DELTA: instantiating (14) with fresh symbol all_123_0 gives: % 12.89/2.44 | (15) ~ (all_123_0 = 0) & in(all_78_2, all_78_0) = all_123_0 % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.44 | ALPHA: (15) implies: % 12.89/2.44 | (16) ~ (all_123_0 = 0) % 12.89/2.44 | (17) in(all_78_2, all_78_0) = all_123_0 % 12.89/2.44 | % 12.89/2.45 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (11) with all_123_0, simplifying with (17) gives: % 12.89/2.45 | (18) all_123_0 = 0 % 12.89/2.45 | % 12.89/2.45 | REDUCE: (16), (18) imply: % 12.89/2.45 | (19) $false % 12.89/2.45 | % 12.89/2.45 | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 12.89/2.45 | % 12.89/2.45 End of proof % 12.89/2.45 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 12.89/2.45 % 12.89/2.45 1958ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------