%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SWW652_2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n018.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 Sep 1 00:51:01 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 7.58s 1.82s % Output : Proof 8.76s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SWW652_2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.1.0. % 0.00/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 20:27:01 EDT 2023 % 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.65 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.65 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.65 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.65 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.65 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.65 % 0.20/0.65 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.65 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.65 % 0.20/0.65 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.65 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.65 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.65 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.65 % 0.20/0.65 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.65 % 0.20/0.65 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.66 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.68 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.68 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.96/1.18 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.18 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.18 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.18 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.18 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.19 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.96/1.20 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 5.80/1.60 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.31/1.61 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.31/1.61 Prover 5: Proving ... % 6.31/1.61 Prover 6: Proving ... % 6.31/1.62 Prover 2: Proving ... % 6.31/1.62 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 6.31/1.62 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.31/1.62 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.31/1.63 Prover 0: Proving ... % 6.31/1.64 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 7.58/1.82 Prover 3: proved (1152ms) % 7.58/1.82 % 7.58/1.82 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.58/1.82 % 7.84/1.83 Prover 6: proved (1149ms) % 7.84/1.83 Prover 5: proved (1149ms) % 7.84/1.83 Prover 2: proved (1157ms) % 7.84/1.83 % 7.84/1.83 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.84/1.83 % 7.84/1.83 % 7.84/1.83 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.84/1.83 % 7.84/1.83 % 7.84/1.83 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.84/1.83 % 7.87/1.84 Prover 0: proved (1158ms) % 7.87/1.84 % 7.87/1.84 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 7.87/1.84 % 7.87/1.84 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 7.87/1.84 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 7.87/1.84 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 7.87/1.84 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 7.87/1.85 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 7.87/1.85 Prover 1: Found proof (size 14) % 7.87/1.85 Prover 1: proved (1185ms) % 7.87/1.86 Prover 4: Found proof (size 14) % 7.87/1.86 Prover 4: proved (1187ms) % 8.31/1.91 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.92 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.92 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.93 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.93 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 8.31/1.94 Prover 10: stopped % 8.31/1.95 Prover 7: stopped % 8.31/1.95 Prover 13: stopped % 8.31/1.95 Prover 11: stopped % 8.76/2.01 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.76/2.02 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.76/2.03 Prover 8: stopped % 8.76/2.03 % 8.76/2.03 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 8.76/2.03 % 8.76/2.03 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 8.76/2.03 Assumptions after simplification: % 8.76/2.03 --------------------------------- % 8.76/2.03 % 8.76/2.03 (ineq1) % 8.76/2.04 ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ? [v2: int] : ? [v3: int] : ($lesseq(1, % 8.76/2.04 $sum($difference(v3, v2), v0)) & $lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1)) & % 8.76/2.04 $lesseq(0, v1) & $product(v1, v0) = v3 & $product(v0, v0) = v2) % 8.76/2.04 % 8.76/2.04 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 8.76/2.04 -------------------------------------------- % 8.76/2.04 bool_inversion, compatOrderMult, contents_def1, contents_sort1, % 8.76/2.04 match_bool_False, match_bool_True, match_bool_sort1, mk_ref_sort1, oneClass, % 8.76/2.04 path_inversion, path_refl, path_sym, path_trans, ref_inversion1, % 8.76/2.04 repr_function_1, repr_function_2, same_def, same_reprs_def, state_def1, % 8.76/2.04 true_False, tuple0_inversion, uf_inversion1, witness_sort1 % 8.76/2.04 % 8.76/2.04 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 8.76/2.04 --------------------------------- % 8.76/2.04 % 8.76/2.04 Begin of proof % 8.76/2.04 | % 8.76/2.04 | DELTA: instantiating (ineq1) with fresh symbols all_38_0, all_38_1, all_38_2, % 8.76/2.04 | all_38_3 gives: % 8.76/2.04 | (1) $lesseq(1, $sum($difference(all_38_0, all_38_1), all_38_3)) & % 8.76/2.04 | $lesseq(1, $difference(all_38_3, all_38_2)) & $lesseq(0, all_38_2) & % 8.76/2.04 | $product(all_38_2, all_38_3) = all_38_0 & $product(all_38_3, all_38_3) % 8.76/2.04 | = all_38_1 % 8.76/2.04 | % 8.76/2.04 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 8.76/2.04 | (2) $lesseq(0, all_38_2) % 8.76/2.04 | (3) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_38_3, all_38_2)) % 8.76/2.04 | (4) $lesseq(1, $sum($difference(all_38_0, all_38_1), all_38_3)) % 8.76/2.04 | (5) $product(all_38_3, all_38_3) = all_38_1 % 8.76/2.04 | (6) $product(all_38_2, all_38_3) = all_38_0 % 8.76/2.04 | % 8.76/2.05 | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (3) imply: % 8.76/2.05 | (7) $lesseq(1, all_38_3) % 8.76/2.05 | % 8.76/2.05 | THEORY_AXIOM GroebnerMultiplication: % 8.76/2.05 | (8) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: int] : ( ~ % 8.76/2.05 | ($lesseq(2, $sum($difference($difference(v3, v2), v1), $product(2, % 8.76/2.05 | v0)))) | ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1))) | ~ % 8.76/2.05 | ($lesseq(1, v0)) | ~ ($product(v1, v0) = v3) | ~ ($product(v0, v0) % 8.76/2.05 | = v2)) % 8.76/2.05 | % 8.76/2.05 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_38_3, all_38_2, all_38_1, all_38_0, % 8.76/2.05 | simplifying with (5), (6) gives: % 8.76/2.05 | (9) ~ ($lesseq(2, $sum($difference($difference(all_38_0, all_38_1), % 8.76/2.05 | all_38_2), $product(2, all_38_3)))) | ~ ($lesseq(1, % 8.76/2.05 | $difference(all_38_3, all_38_2))) | ~ ($lesseq(1, all_38_3)) % 8.76/2.05 | % 8.76/2.05 | BETA: splitting (9) gives: % 8.76/2.05 | % 8.76/2.05 | Case 1: % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | (10) $lesseq(all_38_3, all_38_2) % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (3), (10) imply: % 8.76/2.05 | | (11) $false % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | CLOSE: (11) is inconsistent. % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | Case 2: % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | (12) ~ ($lesseq(2, $sum($difference($difference(all_38_0, all_38_1), % 8.76/2.05 | | all_38_2), $product(2, all_38_3)))) | ~ ($lesseq(1, % 8.76/2.05 | | all_38_3)) % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | BETA: splitting (12) gives: % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | | Case 1: % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | (13) $lesseq(all_38_3, 0) % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (7), (13) imply: % 8.76/2.05 | | | (14) $false % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | CLOSE: (14) is inconsistent. % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | Case 2: % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | (15) $lesseq(-1, $difference($sum($difference(all_38_1, all_38_0), % 8.76/2.05 | | | all_38_2), $product(2, all_38_3))) % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (4), (15) imply: % 8.76/2.05 | | | (16) $lesseq(all_38_3, all_38_2) % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (3), (16) imply: % 8.76/2.05 | | | (17) $false % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 8.76/2.05 | | | % 8.76/2.05 | | End of split % 8.76/2.05 | | % 8.76/2.05 | End of split % 8.76/2.05 | % 8.76/2.05 End of proof % 8.76/2.05 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 8.76/2.05 % 8.76/2.05 1401ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------