%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Nitpick---2016 % Problem : SEV359^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % Computer : n044.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 14:57:06 EST 2017 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 24.34s % Output : FiniteModel 24.34s % 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 : SEV359^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.00/0.04 % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % 0.02/0.24 % Computer : n044.star.cs.uiowa.edu % 0.02/0.24 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.02/0.24 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2609 0 @ 2.40GHz % 0.02/0.24 % Memory : 32218.75MB % 0.02/0.24 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-327.36.3.el7.x86_64 % 0.02/0.24 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.02/0.24 % DateTime : Mon Jan 16 00:20:48 CST 2017 % 0.02/0.24 % CPUTime : % 24.34/10.04 Nitpicking formula... % 24.34/10.04 Timestamp: 00:20:57 % 24.34/10.04 The type TPTP_Interpret.ind passed the monotonicity test; Nitpick might be % 24.34/10.04 able to skip some scopes % 24.34/10.04 Using SAT solver "Lingeling_JNI" The following solvers are configured: % 24.34/10.04 "Lingeling_JNI", "CryptoMiniSat_JNI", "MiniSat_JNI", "SAT4J", "SAT4J_Light" % 24.34/10.04 Batch 1 of 20: Trying 5 scopes: % 24.34/10.04 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1 % 24.34/10.04 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2 % 24.34/10.04 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 3 % 24.34/10.04 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 4 % 24.34/10.04 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 5 % 24.34/10.04 % SZS status CounterSatisfiable % SZS output start FiniteModel % 24.34/10.04 Nitpick found a counterexample for card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1: % 24.34/10.04 % 24.34/10.04 Constants: % 24.34/10.04 bnd_cGVB_COMPOSE = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i1)) % 24.34/10.04 bnd_cGVB_IN = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False)) % 24.34/10.04 bnd_cGVB_ITERATE = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False)) % 24.34/10.04 bnd_cGVB_M = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False) % 24.34/10.04 bnd_f = i1 % 24.34/10.04 bnd_g = i1 % 24.34/10.04 % SZS output end FiniteModel % 24.34/10.04 Total time: 503 ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------