%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Nitpick---2016 % Problem : SEV180^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % Computer : n060.star.cs.uiowa.edu % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2609 0 2.40GHz % Memory : 32218.75MB % OS : Linux 3.10.0-327.36.3.el7.x86_64 % CPULimit : 300s % DateTime : Wed Jan 18 14:56:39 EST 2017 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 23.37s % Output : FiniteModel 23.37s % Verified : % SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails) % Syntax : Number of formulae : 0 % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEV180^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.00/0.04 % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % 0.03/0.24 % Computer : n060.star.cs.uiowa.edu % 0.03/0.24 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.03/0.24 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2609 0 @ 2.40GHz % 0.03/0.24 % Memory : 32218.75MB % 0.03/0.24 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-327.36.3.el7.x86_64 % 0.03/0.24 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.03/0.24 % DateTime : Mon Jan 16 00:01:19 CST 2017 % 0.03/0.24 % CPUTime : % 23.37/9.82 Nitpicking formula... % 23.37/9.82 Timestamp: 00:01:28 % 23.37/9.82 The type TPTP_Interpret.ind passed the monotonicity test; Nitpick might be % 23.37/9.82 able to skip some scopes % 23.37/9.82 Using SAT solver "Lingeling_JNI" The following solvers are configured: % 23.37/9.82 "Lingeling_JNI", "CryptoMiniSat_JNI", "MiniSat_JNI", "SAT4J", "SAT4J_Light" % 23.37/9.82 Batch 1 of 20: Trying 5 scopes: % 23.37/9.82 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1 % 23.37/9.82 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2 % 23.37/9.82 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 3 % 23.37/9.82 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 4 % 23.37/9.82 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 5 % 23.37/9.82 % SZS status CounterSatisfiable % SZS output start FiniteModel % 23.37/9.82 Nitpick found a counterexample for card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1: % 23.37/9.82 % 23.37/9.82 Constants: % 23.37/9.82 bnd_cF = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False) % 23.37/9.82 bnd_cG = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := True)) % 23.37/9.82 bnd_cJ = % 23.37/9.82 (\<lambda>x. _) % 23.37/9.82 ((\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := True) := i1, % 23.37/9.82 (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False) := i1) % 23.37/9.82 bnd_cQ = % 23.37/9.82 (\<lambda>x. _) % 23.37/9.82 ((\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := True) := True, % 23.37/9.82 (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False) := False) % 23.37/9.82 % SZS output end FiniteModel % 23.37/9.82 Total time: 513 ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------