%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SWW662_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 : n032.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 00:51:03 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 9.63s 2.02s % Output : Proof 12.51s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.09 % Problem : SWW662_2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.1.0. % 0.00/0.09 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.08/0.29 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu % 0.08/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.08/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.08/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 19:19:45 EDT 2023 % 0.08/0.29 % CPUTime : % 0.13/0.50 ________ _____ % 0.13/0.50 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.13/0.50 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.13/0.50 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.13/0.50 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.13/0.50 % 0.13/0.50 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.13/0.50 (2023-06-19) % 0.13/0.50 % 0.13/0.50 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.13/0.50 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.13/0.50 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.13/0.50 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.13/0.50 % 0.13/0.50 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.13/0.50 % 0.13/0.50 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.13/0.52 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.13/0.52 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.13/0.52 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.13/0.52 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.13/0.53 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.13/0.53 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.13/0.53 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.13/0.53 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.98/1.10 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.98/1.10 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 7.51/1.70 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 7.94/1.74 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.21/1.77 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.21/1.77 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.21/1.79 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.21/1.80 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.21/1.80 Prover 6: Proving ... % 8.21/1.82 Prover 0: Proving ... % 8.21/1.82 Prover 5: Proving ... % 9.17/1.89 Prover 2: Proving ... % 9.63/2.02 Prover 3: proved (1490ms) % 9.63/2.02 % 9.63/2.02 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 9.63/2.02 % 9.63/2.02 Prover 0: proved (1498ms) % 9.63/2.02 % 9.63/2.02 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 9.63/2.02 % 9.63/2.02 Prover 6: stopped % 9.63/2.03 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 9.63/2.03 Prover 2: stopped % 9.63/2.04 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 9.63/2.04 Prover 5: stopped % 9.63/2.05 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 9.63/2.05 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 9.63/2.06 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 11.04/2.17 Prover 4: Found proof (size 46) % 11.04/2.17 Prover 4: proved (1648ms) % 11.04/2.17 Prover 1: stopped % 11.33/2.19 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 11.33/2.23 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 11.33/2.23 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 11.70/2.24 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 11.70/2.24 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 11.88/2.27 Prover 10: stopped % 11.88/2.28 Prover 7: stopped % 11.88/2.29 Prover 11: stopped % 11.88/2.30 Prover 13: stopped % 12.30/2.32 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 12.30/2.34 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.30/2.34 Prover 8: stopped % 12.30/2.34 % 12.30/2.34 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 12.30/2.34 % 12.30/2.35 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 12.51/2.36 Assumptions after simplification: % 12.51/2.36 --------------------------------- % 12.51/2.36 % 12.51/2.36 (div_mod_2) % 12.51/2.38 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(2, $difference(v0, $product(2, % 12.51/2.38 v1)))) | ~ ($lesseq(0, v0)) | ~ (div1(v0, 2) = v1)) & ! [v0: int] % 12.51/2.38 : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2, v1), v0))) | ~ % 12.51/2.38 ($lesseq(0, v0)) | ~ (div1(v0, 2) = v1)) % 12.51/2.38 % 12.51/2.38 (is_power_of_2_1) % 12.51/2.39 ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ( ~ ($product(2, v1) = v0) & $lesseq(2, v0) & % 12.51/2.39 is_power_of_21(v0) = 0 & div1(v0, 2) = v1) % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 (is_power_of_2_def) % 12.51/2.39 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ ($lesseq(0, v2)) | % 12.51/2.39 ~ (is_power_of_21(v0) = v1) | ~ (power1(2, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: int] : ( ~ % 12.51/2.39 (is_power_of_21(v0) = 0) | ? [v1: int] : ($lesseq(0, v1) & power1(2, v1) = % 12.51/2.39 v0)) % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 (power_0) % 12.51/2.39 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 1 | ~ (power1(v0, 0) = v1)) % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 (power_1) % 12.51/2.39 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (power1(v0, 1) = v1)) % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 (power_s_alt) % 12.51/2.39 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, v1)) | ~ % 12.51/2.39 (power1(v0, $sum(v1, -1)) = v2) | ? [v3: int] : (power1(v0, v1) = v3 & % 12.51/2.39 $product(v0, v2) = v3)) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ % 12.51/2.39 ($lesseq(1, v1)) | ~ (power1(v0, v1) = v2) | ? [v3: int] : (power1(v0, % 12.51/2.39 $sum(v1, -1)) = v3 & $product(v0, v3) = v2)) % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 12.51/2.39 -------------------------------------------- % 12.51/2.39 abs_def, abs_le, abs_pos, array_inversion1, bool_inversion, bridgeL, bridgeL1, % 12.51/2.39 bridgeL2, bridgeR, bridgeR1, bridgeR2, compatOrderMult, const, const_sort1, % 12.51/2.39 div_1, div_bound, div_inf, div_mod, div_mult, div_sign_neg, div_sign_pos, % 12.51/2.39 elts_def1, elts_sort1, get_def, get_sort2, get_sort3, length_def1, make_def, % 12.51/2.39 make_sort1, match_bool_False, match_bool_True, match_bool_sort1, mk_array_sort1, % 12.51/2.39 mod_1, mod_bound, mod_inf, mod_mult, mod_sign_neg, mod_sign_pos, power_mult, % 12.51/2.39 power_mult2, power_s, power_sum, rounds_toward_zero, select_eq, select_neq, % 12.51/2.39 set_def, set_sort2, set_sort3, sum_def, sum_def_empty, sum_def_non_empty, % 12.51/2.39 sum_eq, sum_right_extension, sum_transitivity, t2tb_sort, t2tb_sort1, % 12.51/2.39 t2tb_sort2, true_False, tuple0_inversion, witness_sort1 % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 12.51/2.39 --------------------------------- % 12.51/2.39 % 12.51/2.39 Begin of proof % 12.51/2.40 | % 12.51/2.40 | ALPHA: (power_s_alt) implies: % 12.51/2.40 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, v1)) | ~ % 12.51/2.40 | (power1(v0, v1) = v2) | ? [v3: int] : (power1(v0, $sum(v1, -1)) = v3 % 12.51/2.40 | & $product(v0, v3) = v2)) % 12.51/2.40 | % 12.51/2.40 | ALPHA: (div_mod_2) implies: % 12.51/2.40 | (2) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2, % 12.51/2.40 | v1), v0))) | ~ ($lesseq(0, v0)) | ~ (div1(v0, 2) = v1)) % 12.51/2.40 | (3) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(2, $difference(v0, % 12.51/2.40 | $product(2, v1)))) | ~ ($lesseq(0, v0)) | ~ (div1(v0, 2) = % 12.51/2.40 | v1)) % 12.51/2.40 | % 12.51/2.40 | ALPHA: (is_power_of_2_def) implies: % 12.51/2.40 | (4) ! [v0: int] : ( ~ (is_power_of_21(v0) = 0) | ? [v1: int] : % 12.51/2.40 | ($lesseq(0, v1) & power1(2, v1) = v0)) % 12.51/2.40 | % 12.51/2.40 | DELTA: instantiating (is_power_of_2_1) with fresh symbols all_75_0, all_75_1 % 12.51/2.40 | gives: % 12.51/2.40 | (5) ~ ($product(2, all_75_0) = all_75_1) & $lesseq(2, all_75_1) & % 12.51/2.40 | is_power_of_21(all_75_1) = 0 & div1(all_75_1, 2) = all_75_0 % 12.51/2.40 | % 12.51/2.40 | ALPHA: (5) implies: % 12.51/2.40 | (6) ~ ($product(2, all_75_0) = all_75_1) % 12.51/2.40 | (7) $lesseq(2, all_75_1) % 12.51/2.41 | (8) div1(all_75_1, 2) = all_75_0 % 12.51/2.41 | (9) is_power_of_21(all_75_1) = 0 % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_75_1, all_75_0, simplifying with (8) % 12.51/2.41 | gives: % 12.51/2.41 | (10) ~ ($lesseq(2, $difference(all_75_1, $product(2, all_75_0)))) | ~ % 12.51/2.41 | ($lesseq(0, all_75_1)) % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_75_1, all_75_0, simplifying with (8) % 12.51/2.41 | gives: % 12.51/2.41 | (11) ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2, all_75_0), all_75_1))) | ~ % 12.51/2.41 | ($lesseq(0, all_75_1)) % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_75_1, simplifying with (9) gives: % 12.51/2.41 | (12) ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(0, v0) & power1(2, v0) = all_75_1) % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | DELTA: instantiating (12) with fresh symbol all_98_0 gives: % 12.51/2.41 | (13) $lesseq(0, all_98_0) & power1(2, all_98_0) = all_75_1 % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | ALPHA: (13) implies: % 12.51/2.41 | (14) $lesseq(0, all_98_0) % 12.51/2.41 | (15) power1(2, all_98_0) = all_75_1 % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | BETA: splitting (11) gives: % 12.51/2.41 | % 12.51/2.41 | Case 1: % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | (16) $lesseq(all_75_1, -1) % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (7), (16) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | (17) $false % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | Case 2: % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | (18) $lesseq(0, $difference(all_75_1, $product(2, all_75_0))) % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | STRENGTHEN: (6), (18) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | (19) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_75_1, $product(2, all_75_0))) % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | BETA: splitting (10) gives: % 12.51/2.41 | | % 12.51/2.41 | | Case 1: % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | (20) $lesseq(all_75_1, -1) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (7), (20) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (21) $false % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent. % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | Case 2: % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | (22) $lesseq(-1, $difference($product(2, all_75_0), all_75_1)) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | ANTI_SYMM: (19), (22) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (23) $difference($product(2, all_75_0), all_75_1) = -1 % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | COL_REDUCE: introducing fresh symbol sc_133_1_0 defined by: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (24) $difference(all_75_0, all_75_1) = sc_133_1_0 % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | COMBINE_EQS: (23), (24) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (25) $sum(all_75_1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0)) = -1 % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | REDUCE: (7), (25) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (26) $lesseq(sc_133_1_0, -2) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | SIMP: (26) implies: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (27) $lesseq(sc_133_1_0, -2) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | REDUCE: (15), (25) imply: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (28) power1(2, all_98_0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0)) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.41 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (power_1) with 2, $difference(-1, $product(2, % 12.51/2.41 | | | sc_133_1_0)) gives: % 12.51/2.41 | | | (29) ~ (power1(2, 1) = $difference(-1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.41 | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (power_0) with 2, $difference(-1, $product(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | sc_133_1_0)) gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | (30) sc_133_1_0 = -1 | ~ (power1(2, 0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | BETA: splitting (30) gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | Case 1: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (31) ~ (power1(2, 0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (28), (31) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (32) ~ (all_98_0 = 0) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (28), (29) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (33) ~ (all_98_0 = 1) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | STRENGTHEN: (14), (32) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (34) $lesseq(1, all_98_0) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | STRENGTHEN: (33), (34) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (35) $lesseq(2, all_98_0) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 2, all_98_0, $difference(-1, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | $product(2, sc_133_1_0)), simplifying with (28) gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (36) ~ ($lesseq(1, all_98_0)) | ? [v0: int] : (power1(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | $sum(all_98_0, -1)) = v0 & $product(2, v0) = $difference(-1, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | $product(2, sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | BETA: splitting (36) gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | Case 1: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (37) $lesseq(all_98_0, 0) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (35), (37) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (38) $false % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | CLOSE: (38) is inconsistent. % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | Case 2: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (39) ? [v0: int] : (power1(2, $sum(all_98_0, -1)) = v0 & % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | $product(2, v0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | DELTA: instantiating (39) with fresh symbol all_173_0 gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (40) power1(2, $sum(all_98_0, -1)) = all_173_0 & $product(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | all_173_0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, sc_133_1_0)) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | ALPHA: (40) implies: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (41) $product(2, all_173_0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | sc_133_1_0)) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | THEORY_AXIOM GroebnerMultiplication: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (42) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ~ ($product(2, v1) = % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | $difference(-1, $product(2, v0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (42) with sc_133_1_0, all_173_0 gives: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (43) ~ ($product(2, all_173_0) = $difference(-1, $product(2, % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | sc_133_1_0))) % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (41), (43) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | (44) $false % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | CLOSE: (44) is inconsistent. % 12.51/2.42 | | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | End of split % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | Case 2: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (45) sc_133_1_0 = -1 % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | REDUCE: (27), (45) imply: % 12.51/2.42 | | | | (46) $false % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | | CLOSE: (46) is inconsistent. % 12.51/2.42 | | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | | End of split % 12.51/2.42 | | | % 12.51/2.42 | | End of split % 12.51/2.42 | | % 12.51/2.42 | End of split % 12.51/2.42 | % 12.51/2.42 End of proof % 12.51/2.42 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 12.51/2.42 % 12.51/2.42 1918ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------