%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Nitpick---2016 % Problem : SEV331^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % Computer : n114.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 14:57:01 EST 2017 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 23.35s % Output : FiniteModel 23.35s % 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 : SEV331^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.03/0.04 % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % 0.03/0.24 % Computer : n114.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 00:19:03 CST 2017 % 0.03/0.24 % CPUTime : % 23.35/15.77 Nitpicking formula... % 23.35/15.77 Timestamp: 00:19:12 % 23.35/15.77 The type TPTP_Interpret.ind passed the monotonicity test; Nitpick might be % 23.35/15.77 able to skip some scopes % 23.35/15.77 Using SAT solver "Lingeling_JNI" The following solvers are configured: % 23.35/15.77 "Lingeling_JNI", "CryptoMiniSat_JNI", "MiniSat_JNI", "SAT4J", "SAT4J_Light" % 23.35/15.77 Batch 1 of 20: Trying 5 scopes: % 23.35/15.77 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1 % 23.35/15.77 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2 % 23.35/15.77 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 3 % 23.35/15.77 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 4 % 23.35/15.77 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 5 % 23.35/15.77 % SZS status CounterSatisfiable % SZS output start FiniteModel % 23.35/15.77 Nitpick found a counterexample for card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2: % 23.35/15.77 % 23.35/15.77 Constants: % 23.35/15.77 bnd_cGVB_NOP = % 23.35/15.77 (\<lambda>x. _) % 23.35/15.77 (i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i1, i2 := i1), % 23.35/15.77 i2 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i1, i2 := i1)) % 23.35/15.77 bnd_cGVB_OP = % 23.35/15.77 (\<lambda>x. _) % 23.35/15.77 (i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i1, i2 := i1), % 23.35/15.77 i2 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i1)) % 23.35/15.77 bnd_cGVB_SING = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i1, i2 := i1) % 23.35/15.77 bnd_x = i2 % 23.35/15.77 bnd_y = i1 % 23.35/15.77 % SZS output end FiniteModel % 23.35/15.77 Total time: 3.8 s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------