%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Nitpick---2016 % Problem : SEV377^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % Computer : n083.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 14:57:09 EST 2017 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 24.25s % Output : FiniteModel 24.25s % Verified : % SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails) % Syntax : Number of formulae : 0 % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEV377^5 : TPTP v6.4.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.00/0.05 % Command : isabelle tptp_nitpick %d %s % 0.02/0.25 % Computer : n083.star.cs.uiowa.edu % 0.02/0.25 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.02/0.25 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2609 0 @ 2.40GHz % 0.02/0.25 % Memory : 32218.75MB % 0.02/0.25 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-327.36.3.el7.x86_64 % 0.02/0.25 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.02/0.25 % DateTime : Mon Jan 16 00:21:34 CST 2017 % 0.02/0.25 % CPUTime : % 24.25/17.23 Nitpicking formula... % 24.25/17.23 Timestamp: 00:21:42 % 24.25/17.23 The type TPTP_Interpret.ind passed the monotonicity test; Nitpick might be % 24.25/17.23 able to skip some scopes % 24.25/17.23 Using SAT solver "Lingeling_JNI" The following solvers are configured: % 24.25/17.23 "Lingeling_JNI", "CryptoMiniSat_JNI", "MiniSat_JNI", "SAT4J", "SAT4J_Light" % 24.25/17.23 Batch 1 of 20: Trying 5 scopes: % 24.25/17.23 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 1 % 24.25/17.23 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2 % 24.25/17.23 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 3 % 24.25/17.23 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 4 % 24.25/17.23 card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 5 % 24.25/17.23 % SZS status CounterSatisfiable % SZS output start FiniteModel % 24.25/17.23 Nitpick found a counterexample for card TPTP_Interpret.ind = 2: % 24.25/17.23 % 24.25/17.23 Skolem constants: % 24.25/17.23 Xf = i1 % 24.25/17.23 Xg = i1 % 24.25/17.23 Xx = i1 % 24.25/17.23 Constants: % 24.25/17.23 bnd_cGVB_APPLY = % 24.25/17.23 (\<lambda>x. _) % 24.25/17.23 (i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i1), % 24.25/17.23 i2 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i1)) % 24.25/17.23 bnd_cGVB_COMPOSE = % 24.25/17.23 (\<lambda>x. _) % 24.25/17.23 (i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i2), % 24.25/17.23 i2 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i2)) % 24.25/17.23 bnd_cGVB_DOMAIN = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := i2, i2 := i2) % 24.25/17.23 bnd_cGVB_FUNCTION = (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := True, i2 := False) % 24.25/17.23 bnd_cGVB_IN = % 24.25/17.23 (\<lambda>x. _) % 24.25/17.23 (i1 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False, i2 := True), % 24.25/17.23 i2 := (\<lambda>x. _)(i1 := False, i2 := False)) % 24.25/17.23 % SZS output end FiniteModel % 24.25/17.23 Total time: 2.9 s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------