%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Duper---1.0 % Problem : SEV240^5 : TPTP v9.2.0. Released v4.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : duper %s % Computer : n016.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 : Fri Oct 3 08:02:59 PM UTC 2025 % Result : Theorem 4.19s 4.38s % Output : Proof 4.19s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.13/0.15 % Problem : SEV240^5 : TPTP v9.2.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.13/0.16 % Command : duper %s % 0.14/0.38 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.38 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.38 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.38 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.38 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.14/0.38 % DateTime : Fri Oct 3 01:42:38 EDT 2025 % 0.14/0.38 % CPUTime : % 4.19/4.38 SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark.p % 4.19/4.38 SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark.p % 4.19/4.38 Clause #0 (by assumption #[]): Eq (Not (∀ (Xx : a → Prop), cA Xx → ∀ (Xx0 : a), Xx Xx0 → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S Xx0))) True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #1 (by clausification #[0]): Eq (∀ (Xx : a → Prop), cA Xx → ∀ (Xx0 : a), Xx Xx0 → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S Xx0)) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #2 (by clausification #[1]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop), Eq (Not (cA (skS.0 0 a_1) → ∀ (Xx0 : a), skS.0 0 a_1 Xx0 → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S Xx0))) True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #3 (by clausification #[2]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop), Eq (cA (skS.0 0 a_1) → ∀ (Xx0 : a), skS.0 0 a_1 Xx0 → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S Xx0)) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #4 (by clausification #[3]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop), Eq (cA (skS.0 0 a_1)) True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #5 (by clausification #[3]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop), Eq (∀ (Xx0 : a), skS.0 0 a_1 Xx0 → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S Xx0)) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #6 (by clausification #[5]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop) (a_2 : a), % 4.19/4.38 Eq (Not (skS.0 0 a_1 (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2) → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2)))) True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #7 (by clausification #[6]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop) (a_2 : a), % 4.19/4.38 Eq (skS.0 0 a_1 (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2) → Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2))) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #8 (by clausification #[7]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop) (a_2 : a), Eq (skS.0 0 a_1 (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2)) True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #9 (by clausification #[7]): ∀ (a_1 : a → Prop) (a_2 : a), Eq (Exists fun S => And (cA S) (S (skS.0 1 a_1 a_2))) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #10 (by clausification #[9]): ∀ (a_1 a_2 : a → Prop) (a_3 : a), Eq (And (cA a_1) (a_1 (skS.0 1 a_2 a_3))) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #11 (by clausification #[10]): ∀ (a_1 a_2 : a → Prop) (a_3 : a), Or (Eq (cA a_1) False) (Eq (a_1 (skS.0 1 a_2 a_3)) False) % 4.19/4.38 Clause #12 (by superposition #[11, 4]): ∀ (a_1 a_2 : a → Prop) (a_3 : a), Or (Eq ((fun x => skS.0 0 a_1 x) (skS.0 1 a_2 a_3)) False) (Eq False True) % 4.19/4.38 Clause #13 (by betaEtaReduce #[12]): ∀ (a_1 a_2 : a → Prop) (a_3 : a), Or (Eq (skS.0 0 a_1 (skS.0 1 a_2 a_3)) False) (Eq False True) % 4.19/4.38 Clause #14 (by clausification #[13]): ∀ (a_1 a_2 : a → Prop) (a_3 : a), Eq (skS.0 0 a_1 (skS.0 1 a_2 a_3)) False % 4.19/4.38 Clause #15 (by superposition #[14, 8]): Eq False True % 4.19/4.38 Clause #16 (by clausification #[15]): False % 4.19/4.38 SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark.p %------------------------------------------------------------------------------