%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SWC086+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n019.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 : Thu Aug 31 20:49:34 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 37.71s 5.85s % Output : Proof 95.26s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.14 % Problem : SWC086+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0. % 0.00/0.15 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.37 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.37 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.14/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 16:06:58 EDT 2023 % 0.14/0.37 % CPUTime : % 0.22/0.62 ________ _____ % 0.22/0.62 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.22/0.62 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.22/0.62 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.22/0.62 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.22/0.62 % 0.22/0.62 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.22/0.62 (2023-06-19) % 0.22/0.62 % 0.22/0.62 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.22/0.62 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.22/0.62 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.22/0.62 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.22/0.62 % 0.22/0.62 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.22/0.62 % 0.22/0.62 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.22/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.22/0.64 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.22/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 4.89/1.50 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 4.89/1.53 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 5.35/1.56 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 5.35/1.56 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 5.35/1.56 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 5.35/1.56 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 5.35/1.56 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 16.65/3.09 Prover 2: Proving ... % 17.62/3.19 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 17.62/3.22 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 17.62/3.23 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 17.62/3.25 Prover 6: Proving ... % 23.82/4.07 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 25.24/4.26 Prover 0: Proving ... % 37.40/5.85 Prover 3: proved (5210ms) % 37.71/5.85 % 37.71/5.85 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 37.71/5.85 % 37.71/5.85 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 37.71/5.87 Prover 2: stopped % 37.71/5.87 Prover 6: stopped % 37.71/5.88 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 37.71/5.88 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 37.71/5.88 Prover 5: stopped % 37.71/5.89 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 37.71/5.93 Prover 0: stopped % 37.71/5.93 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 39.26/6.09 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 39.69/6.13 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 39.97/6.19 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 39.97/6.22 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 39.97/6.22 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 40.60/6.31 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 40.60/6.38 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 41.16/6.42 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 43.30/6.65 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 43.30/6.67 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 47.93/7.23 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 74.96/10.78 Prover 13: stopped % 75.50/10.82 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 76.04/10.91 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 76.92/11.01 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ... % 94.82/13.46 Prover 7: Found proof (size 41) % 94.82/13.46 Prover 7: proved (7537ms) % 94.82/13.46 Prover 8: stopped % 94.82/13.46 Prover 10: stopped % 94.82/13.46 Prover 1: stopped % 94.82/13.46 Prover 11: stopped % 94.82/13.46 Prover 16: stopped % 94.82/13.50 Prover 4: stopped % 94.82/13.50 % 94.82/13.50 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 94.82/13.50 % 94.82/13.51 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 94.82/13.51 Assumptions after simplification: % 94.82/13.51 --------------------------------- % 94.82/13.51 % 94.82/13.51 (ax1) % 95.26/13.52 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssItem(v1) | % 95.26/13.52 ~ ssItem(v0) | neq(v0, v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ neq(v0, v0) | % 95.26/13.52 ~ ssItem(v0)) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (ax17) % 95.26/13.52 $i(nil) & ssList(nil) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (ax2) % 95.26/13.52 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ( ~ (v1 = v0) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssItem(v1) & % 95.26/13.52 ssItem(v0)) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (ax46) % 95.26/13.52 $i(nil) & ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = nil | ~ $i(v0) | ~ frontsegP(nil, v0) | ~ % 95.26/13.52 ssList(v0)) & ( ~ ssList(nil) | frontsegP(nil, nil)) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (ax55) % 95.26/13.52 ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | segmentP(v0, v0)) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (ax57) % 95.26/13.52 $i(nil) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | segmentP(v0, nil)) % 95.26/13.52 % 95.26/13.52 (co1) % 95.26/13.53 $i(nil) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & % 95.26/13.53 ssList(v0) & neq(v1, nil) & ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ $i(v2) | ~ segmentP(v1, v2) | % 95.26/13.53 ~ segmentP(v0, v2) | ~ ssList(v2) | ~ neq(v2, nil)) & ((v1 = nil & v0 = % 95.26/13.53 nil) | (segmentP(v1, v0) & neq(v0, nil)))) % 95.26/13.53 % 95.26/13.53 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 95.26/13.53 -------------------------------------------- % 95.26/13.53 ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax16, ax18, ax19, ax20, ax21, ax22, ax23, % 95.26/13.53 ax24, ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32, ax33, ax34, ax35, % 95.26/13.53 ax36, ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax42, ax43, ax44, ax45, ax47, ax48, % 95.26/13.53 ax49, ax5, ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax56, ax58, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, % 95.26/13.53 ax62, ax63, ax64, ax65, ax66, ax67, ax68, ax69, ax7, ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, % 95.26/13.53 ax74, ax75, ax76, ax77, ax78, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax81, ax82, ax83, ax84, ax85, % 95.26/13.53 ax86, ax87, ax88, ax89, ax9, ax90, ax91, ax92, ax93, ax94, ax95 % 95.26/13.53 % 95.26/13.53 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 95.26/13.53 --------------------------------- % 95.26/13.53 % 95.26/13.53 Begin of proof % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (ax1) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 95.26/13.53 | ssItem(v1) | ~ ssItem(v0) | neq(v0, v1)) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (ax17) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (2) ssList(nil) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (ax46) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (3) ~ ssList(nil) | frontsegP(nil, nil) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (ax57) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (4) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | segmentP(v0, nil)) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (co1) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (5) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) % 95.26/13.53 | & neq(v1, nil) & ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ $i(v2) | ~ segmentP(v1, v2) | ~ % 95.26/13.53 | segmentP(v0, v2) | ~ ssList(v2) | ~ neq(v2, nil)) & ((v1 = nil & % 95.26/13.53 | v0 = nil) | (segmentP(v1, v0) & neq(v0, nil)))) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | DELTA: instantiating (ax2) with fresh symbols all_89_0, all_89_1 gives: % 95.26/13.53 | (6) ~ (all_89_0 = all_89_1) & $i(all_89_0) & $i(all_89_1) & % 95.26/13.53 | ssItem(all_89_0) & ssItem(all_89_1) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | ALPHA: (6) implies: % 95.26/13.53 | (7) ~ (all_89_0 = all_89_1) % 95.26/13.53 | (8) ssItem(all_89_1) % 95.26/13.53 | (9) ssItem(all_89_0) % 95.26/13.53 | (10) $i(all_89_1) % 95.26/13.53 | (11) $i(all_89_0) % 95.26/13.53 | % 95.26/13.53 | DELTA: instantiating (5) with fresh symbols all_91_0, all_91_1 gives: % 95.26/13.54 | (12) $i(all_91_0) & $i(all_91_1) & ssList(all_91_0) & ssList(all_91_1) & % 95.26/13.54 | neq(all_91_0, nil) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ segmentP(all_91_0, % 95.26/13.54 | v0) | ~ segmentP(all_91_1, v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | ~ neq(v0, nil)) % 95.26/13.54 | & ((all_91_0 = nil & all_91_1 = nil) | (segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) & % 95.26/13.54 | neq(all_91_1, nil))) % 95.26/13.54 | % 95.26/13.54 | ALPHA: (12) implies: % 95.26/13.54 | (13) neq(all_91_0, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | (14) ssList(all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | (15) $i(all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | (16) (all_91_0 = nil & all_91_1 = nil) | (segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) & % 95.26/13.54 | neq(all_91_1, nil)) % 95.26/13.54 | (17) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ segmentP(all_91_0, v0) | ~ % 95.26/13.54 | segmentP(all_91_1, v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | ~ neq(v0, nil)) % 95.26/13.54 | % 95.26/13.54 | BETA: splitting (3) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | % 95.26/13.54 | Case 1: % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | (18) ~ ssList(nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | PRED_UNIFY: (2), (18) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | (19) $false % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | Case 2: % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_89_1, all_89_0, simplifying with % 95.26/13.54 | | (8), (9), (10), (11) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | (20) all_89_0 = all_89_1 | neq(all_89_1, all_89_0) % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax55) with all_91_1, simplifying with (14), (15) % 95.26/13.54 | | gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | (21) segmentP(all_91_1, all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_91_1, simplifying with (14), (15) % 95.26/13.54 | | gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | (22) segmentP(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | BETA: splitting (20) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | % 95.26/13.54 | | Case 1: % 95.26/13.54 | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (17) with all_91_1, simplifying with (14), % 95.26/13.54 | | | (15), (21) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | | (23) ~ segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) | ~ neq(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | BETA: splitting (16) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | Case 1: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (24) all_91_0 = nil & all_91_1 = nil % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | ALPHA: (24) implies: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (25) all_91_1 = nil % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (26) all_91_0 = nil % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | REDUCE: (22), (25) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (27) segmentP(nil, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | REDUCE: (13), (26) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (28) neq(nil, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | BETA: splitting (23) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | Case 1: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (29) ~ neq(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | REDUCE: (25), (29) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (30) ~ neq(nil, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (28), (30) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (31) $false % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | CLOSE: (31) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | Case 2: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (32) ~ segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | REDUCE: (25), (26), (32) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (33) ~ segmentP(nil, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (27), (33) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (34) $false % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | CLOSE: (34) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | End of split % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | Case 2: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (35) segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) & neq(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | ALPHA: (35) implies: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (36) neq(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | (37) segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | BETA: splitting (23) gives: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | Case 1: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (38) ~ neq(all_91_1, nil) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (36), (38) imply: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (39) $false % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | CLOSE: (39) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | Case 2: % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | (40) ~ segmentP(all_91_0, all_91_1) % 95.26/13.54 | | | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (37), (40) imply: % 95.26/13.55 | | | | | (41) $false % 95.26/13.55 | | | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | | | CLOSE: (41) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.55 | | | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | | End of split % 95.26/13.55 | | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | End of split % 95.26/13.55 | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | Case 2: % 95.26/13.55 | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | (42) all_89_0 = all_89_1 % 95.26/13.55 | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | REDUCE: (7), (42) imply: % 95.26/13.55 | | | (43) $false % 95.26/13.55 | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | | CLOSE: (43) is inconsistent. % 95.26/13.55 | | | % 95.26/13.55 | | End of split % 95.26/13.55 | | % 95.26/13.55 | End of split % 95.26/13.55 | % 95.26/13.55 End of proof % 95.26/13.55 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 95.26/13.55 % 95.26/13.55 12929ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------