%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SWW956+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v7.4.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n028.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 00:51:49 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 17.30s 3.19s % Output : Proof 17.94s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SWW956+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v7.4.0. % 0.00/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 18:16:09 EDT 2023 % 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 2.88/1.18 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.88/1.18 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 3.43/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.43/1.21 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.43/1.21 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.43/1.21 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.43/1.21 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 6.46/1.68 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.46/1.68 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.46/1.70 Prover 5: Proving ... % 6.46/1.70 Prover 2: Proving ... % 6.46/1.70 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.46/1.73 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.46/1.74 Prover 0: Proving ... % 8.65/1.98 Prover 3: gave up % 8.65/1.98 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 8.65/2.09 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 8.65/2.13 Prover 1: gave up % 8.65/2.15 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 9.80/2.20 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 10.67/2.27 Prover 6: gave up % 10.67/2.28 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889 % 10.67/2.29 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 10.67/2.30 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.67/2.31 Prover 9: Preprocessing ... % 11.32/2.37 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 11.60/2.40 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.11/2.50 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ... % 15.91/2.97 Prover 8: gave up % 15.91/2.98 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 16.24/3.04 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 17.30/3.15 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 17.30/3.15 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 17.30/3.16 Prover 7: Found proof (size 26) % 17.30/3.16 Prover 7: proved (1172ms) % 17.30/3.16 Prover 0: stopped % 17.30/3.16 Prover 4: stopped % 17.30/3.16 Prover 5: stopped % 17.30/3.16 Prover 2: stopped % 17.30/3.17 Prover 10: stopped % 17.30/3.18 Prover 9: stopped % 17.30/3.18 % 17.30/3.19 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 17.30/3.19 % 17.62/3.19 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 17.62/3.20 Assumptions after simplification: % 17.62/3.20 --------------------------------- % 17.62/3.20 % 17.62/3.20 (ax55) % 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (constr_enc(v1, v0) = v2) | ~ % 17.62/3.22 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | constr_dec(v2, v0) = v1) % 17.62/3.22 % 17.62/3.22 (ax62) % 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (constr_dec(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ % 17.62/3.22 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v1) | ~ pred_attacker(v0) | % 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v2)) % 17.62/3.22 % 17.62/3.22 (ax76) % 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v1) | pred_attacker(v0)) % 17.62/3.22 % 17.62/3.22 (ax78) % 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v1) | pred_attacker(v0)) % 17.62/3.22 % 17.62/3.22 (ax81) % 17.62/3.23 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_1(v0, v1) = v2) | % 17.62/3.23 ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v2) | pred_attacker(v1)) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (ax82) % 17.62/3.23 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v0) | pred_attacker(v1)) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (ax89) % 17.62/3.23 $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_G_8) & ? [v0: $i] : (tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) % 17.62/3.23 = v0 & $i(v0) & pred_attacker(v0)) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (ax90) % 17.62/3.23 $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_Na) & $i(name_G_8) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? % 17.62/3.23 [v2: $i] : (tuple_A_out_2(v1) = v2 & constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = v0 & % 17.62/3.23 constr_mod(v0, name_P_7) = v1 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & % 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v2)) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (ax91) % 17.62/3.23 $i(name_objective) & $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_Na) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : % 17.62/3.23 ( ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v1) | ? [v2: $i] : % 17.62/3.23 ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] : (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 & % 17.62/3.23 constr_exp(v0, name_Na) = v2 & constr_mod(v2, name_P_7) = v3 & % 17.62/3.23 constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & % 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v5))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (constr_exp(v0, % 17.62/3.23 name_Na) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : % 17.62/3.23 ? [v5: $i] : ((tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & ~ pred_attacker(v2)) | % 17.62/3.23 (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 & constr_mod(v1, name_P_7) = v3 & % 17.62/3.23 constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & % 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v5)))) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (co0) % 17.62/3.23 $i(name_objective) & ~ pred_attacker(name_objective) % 17.62/3.23 % 17.62/3.23 (function-axioms) % 17.62/3.24 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 17.62/3.24 (tuple_A_out_1(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_out_1(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: % 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 17.62/3.24 (tuple_B_in_1(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_B_in_1(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] % 17.62/3.24 : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_exp(v3, v2) % 17.62/3.24 = v1) | ~ (constr_exp(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! % 17.62/3.24 [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ % 17.62/3.24 (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! % 17.62/3.24 [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_enc(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_enc(v3, v2) = % 17.62/3.24 v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | % 17.62/3.24 ~ (constr_dec(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_dec(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : % 17.62/3.24 ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (name_new0x2Dname(v2) = v1) | ~ % 17.62/3.24 (name_new0x2Dname(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 % 17.62/3.24 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: % 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v2) = v1) | % 17.62/3.24 ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 % 17.62/3.24 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: % 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (tuple_B_in_2(v2) = v1) | ~ % 17.62/3.24 (tuple_B_in_2(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = % 17.62/3.24 v0 | ~ (tuple_B_out_3(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_B_out_3(v2) = v0)) % 17.62/3.24 % 17.62/3.24 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 17.62/3.24 -------------------------------------------- % 17.62/3.24 ax0, ax1, ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax16, ax17, ax18, ax19, ax2, ax20, % 17.62/3.24 ax21, ax22, ax23, ax24, ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32, % 17.62/3.24 ax33, ax34, ax35, ax36, ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax42, ax43, ax44, % 17.62/3.24 ax45, ax46, ax47, ax48, ax49, ax5, ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax56, ax57, % 17.62/3.24 ax58, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, ax63, ax64, ax65, ax66, ax67, ax68, ax69, ax7, % 17.62/3.24 ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, ax74, ax75, ax77, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax83, ax84, ax85, % 17.62/3.24 ax86, ax87, ax88, ax9, ax92 % 17.62/3.24 % 17.62/3.24 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 17.62/3.24 --------------------------------- % 17.62/3.24 % 17.62/3.24 Begin of proof % 17.62/3.24 | % 17.62/3.24 | ALPHA: (ax89) implies: % 17.62/3.24 | (1) ? [v0: $i] : (tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = v0 & $i(v0) & % 17.62/3.24 | pred_attacker(v0)) % 17.62/3.24 | % 17.62/3.24 | ALPHA: (ax90) implies: % 17.62/3.25 | (2) $i(name_G_8) % 17.62/3.25 | (3) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : (tuple_A_out_2(v1) = v2 & % 17.62/3.25 | constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = v0 & constr_mod(v0, name_P_7) = v1 & % 17.62/3.25 | $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & pred_attacker(v2)) % 17.62/3.25 | % 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (ax91) implies: % 17.62/3.25 | (4) $i(name_P_7) % 17.62/3.25 | (5) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (constr_exp(v0, name_Na) = v1) | ~ % 17.62/3.25 | $i(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] : % 17.62/3.25 | ((tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & ~ pred_attacker(v2)) | % 17.62/3.25 | (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 & constr_mod(v1, name_P_7) = v3 & % 17.62/3.25 | constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & % 17.62/3.25 | pred_attacker(v5)))) % 17.62/3.25 | % 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (co0) implies: % 17.62/3.25 | (6) ~ pred_attacker(name_objective) % 17.62/3.25 | (7) $i(name_objective) % 17.62/3.25 | % 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies: % 17.62/3.25 | (8) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ % 17.62/3.25 | (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v0)) % 17.62/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | DELTA: instantiating (1) with fresh symbol all_32_0 gives: % 17.91/3.25 | (9) tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = all_32_0 & $i(all_32_0) & % 17.91/3.25 | pred_attacker(all_32_0) % 17.91/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | ALPHA: (9) implies: % 17.91/3.25 | (10) pred_attacker(all_32_0) % 17.91/3.25 | (11) tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = all_32_0 % 17.91/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_34_0, all_34_1, all_34_2 % 17.91/3.25 | gives: % 17.91/3.25 | (12) tuple_A_out_2(all_34_1) = all_34_0 & constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = % 17.91/3.25 | all_34_2 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_34_1 & $i(all_34_0) & % 17.91/3.25 | $i(all_34_1) & $i(all_34_2) & pred_attacker(all_34_0) % 17.91/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | ALPHA: (12) implies: % 17.91/3.25 | (13) pred_attacker(all_34_0) % 17.91/3.25 | (14) $i(all_34_1) % 17.91/3.25 | (15) constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_34_1 % 17.91/3.25 | (16) constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = all_34_2 % 17.91/3.25 | (17) tuple_A_out_2(all_34_1) = all_34_0 % 17.91/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with name_G_8, all_34_2, simplifying with (2), % 17.91/3.25 | (16) gives: % 17.91/3.25 | (18) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : % 17.91/3.25 | ((tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = v0 & $i(v0) & ~ pred_attacker(v0)) | % 17.91/3.25 | (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v3 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = v1 & % 17.91/3.25 | constr_enc(name_objective, v1) = v2 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & % 17.91/3.25 | pred_attacker(v3))) % 17.91/3.25 | % 17.91/3.25 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax78) with all_34_1, all_34_0, simplifying with % 17.91/3.25 | (13), (14), (17) gives: % 17.91/3.26 | (19) pred_attacker(all_34_1) % 17.91/3.26 | % 17.91/3.26 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax81) with name_P_7, name_G_8, all_32_0, % 17.91/3.26 | simplifying with (2), (4), (10), (11) gives: % 17.91/3.26 | (20) pred_attacker(name_G_8) % 17.91/3.26 | % 17.91/3.26 | DELTA: instantiating (18) with fresh symbols all_46_0, all_46_1, all_46_2, % 17.94/3.26 | all_46_3 gives: % 17.94/3.26 | (21) (tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3 & $i(all_46_3) & ~ % 17.94/3.26 | pred_attacker(all_46_3)) | (tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0 & % 17.94/3.26 | constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_46_2 & % 17.94/3.26 | constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1 & $i(all_46_0) & % 17.94/3.26 | $i(all_46_1) & $i(all_46_2) & pred_attacker(all_46_0)) % 17.94/3.26 | % 17.94/3.26 | BETA: splitting (21) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | % 17.94/3.26 | Case 1: % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | (22) tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3 & $i(all_46_3) & ~ % 17.94/3.26 | | pred_attacker(all_46_3) % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | ALPHA: (22) implies: % 17.94/3.26 | | (23) ~ pred_attacker(all_46_3) % 17.94/3.26 | | (24) tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3 % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax82) with name_G_8, all_46_3, simplifying with % 17.94/3.26 | | (2), (20), (23), (24) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | | (25) $false % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent. % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | Case 2: % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | (26) tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) % 17.94/3.26 | | = all_46_2 & constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1 & % 17.94/3.26 | | $i(all_46_0) & $i(all_46_1) & $i(all_46_2) & pred_attacker(all_46_0) % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | ALPHA: (26) implies: % 17.94/3.26 | | (27) pred_attacker(all_46_0) % 17.94/3.26 | | (28) $i(all_46_2) % 17.94/3.26 | | (29) $i(all_46_1) % 17.94/3.26 | | (30) constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1 % 17.94/3.26 | | (31) constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_46_2 % 17.94/3.26 | | (32) tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0 % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_34_1, all_46_2, name_P_7, all_34_2, % 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (15), (31) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | | (33) all_46_2 = all_34_1 % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | REDUCE: (30), (33) imply: % 17.94/3.26 | | (34) constr_enc(name_objective, all_34_1) = all_46_1 % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax55) with all_34_1, name_objective, all_46_1, % 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (7), (14), (34) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | | (35) constr_dec(all_46_1, all_34_1) = name_objective % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax76) with all_46_1, all_46_0, simplifying with % 17.94/3.26 | | (27), (29), (32) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | | (36) pred_attacker(all_46_1) % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax62) with all_46_1, all_34_1, name_objective, % 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (6), (14), (19), (29), (35), (36) gives: % 17.94/3.26 | | (37) $false % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | | CLOSE: (37) is inconsistent. % 17.94/3.26 | | % 17.94/3.26 | End of split % 17.94/3.26 | % 17.94/3.26 End of proof % 17.94/3.26 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 17.94/3.26 % 17.94/3.26 2659ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------