%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SWX000_1 : TPTP v9.1.0. Released v9.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n016.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 : Sun Apr 6 10:08:51 AM UTC 2025 % Result : Theorem 9.49s 1.94s % Output : Proof 11.53s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SWX000_1 : TPTP v9.1.0. Released v9.1.0. % 0.07/0.12 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Apr 6 03:15:53 EDT 2025 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.60/0.61 ________ _____ % 0.60/0.61 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.60/0.61 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.60/0.61 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.60/0.61 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.60/0.61 % 0.60/0.61 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.60/0.61 (2023-06-19) % 0.60/0.61 % 0.60/0.61 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.60/0.61 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.60/0.61 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.60/0.61 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.60/0.61 % 0.60/0.61 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.60/0.61 % 0.60/0.61 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.64/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.73/0.64 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.73/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 3.78/1.19 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.19 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.21 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.21 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.21 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.93/1.21 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 8.30/1.78 Prover 5: Proving ... % 8.53/1.80 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.53/1.81 Prover 2: Proving ... % 8.72/1.83 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.72/1.84 Prover 0: Proving ... % 8.72/1.86 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.72/1.86 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.72/1.86 Prover 6: Proving ... % 8.72/1.87 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.49/1.93 Prover 0: proved (1296ms) % 9.49/1.94 % 9.49/1.94 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 9.49/1.94 % 9.49/1.94 Prover 5: proved (1296ms) % 9.49/1.94 % 9.49/1.94 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 9.49/1.94 % 9.49/1.94 Prover 3: stopped % 9.49/1.95 Prover 2: stopped % 9.49/1.95 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 9.49/1.95 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 9.49/1.95 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 9.49/1.95 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 9.49/1.96 Prover 6: stopped % 9.49/1.97 Prover 1: Found proof (size 5) % 9.49/1.97 Prover 1: proved (1328ms) % 9.49/1.97 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 9.49/1.97 Prover 4: stopped % 10.02/2.06 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 10.59/2.07 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 10.59/2.07 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 10.59/2.08 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 10.59/2.08 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 10.81/2.10 Prover 10: stopped % 10.81/2.11 Prover 7: stopped % 11.01/2.14 Prover 13: stopped % 11.01/2.14 Prover 11: stopped % 11.53/2.23 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 11.53/2.24 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 11.53/2.25 Prover 8: stopped % 11.53/2.25 % 11.53/2.25 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 11.53/2.25 % 11.53/2.25 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 11.53/2.25 Assumptions after simplification: % 11.53/2.25 --------------------------------- % 11.53/2.25 % 11.53/2.25 (formula_6_constraint_0) % 11.53/2.27 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : ! [v3: general] : % 11.53/2.27 (v3 = v1 | ~ (in(v0, v3, v2) = 0) | ~ (in(v0, v1, v2) = 0) | ~ general(v3) % 11.53/2.27 | ~ general(v2) | ~ general(v1) | ~ general(v0)) % 11.53/2.27 % 11.53/2.27 (formula_9_constraint_0) % 11.53/2.27 ? [v0: general] : ? [v1: general] : ? [v2: general] : ? [v3: general] : ( % 11.53/2.27 ~ (v3 = v1) & in(v0, v3, v2) = 0 & in(v0, v1, v2) = 0 & general(v3) & % 11.53/2.27 general(v2) & general(v1) & general(v0)) % 11.53/2.27 % 11.53/2.27 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 11.53/2.27 -------------------------------------------- % 11.53/2.27 antisymmetric_ordering_ax, f__integer__def_ax, f__symbolic__def_ax, % 11.53/2.27 formula_0_unnamed_formula, formula_1_unnamed_formula, formula_2_unnamed_formula, % 11.53/2.27 formula_3_completed_definition_of_go_2, % 11.53/2.27 formula_4_completed_definition_of_in_building_2, % 11.53/2.27 formula_5_completed_definition_of_in_building_2, formula_7_constraint_1, % 11.53/2.27 formula_8_completed_definition_of_in_3, general_universe_ax, maximal_element_ax, % 11.53/2.27 minimal_element_ax, numeral_ordering_ax, numerals_less_than_symbols_ax, % 11.53/2.27 p__greater__def_ax, p__greater_equal__def_ax, p__is_integer__def_ax, % 11.53/2.27 p__is_symbolic__def_ax, p__less__def_ax, strongly_connected_ordering_ax, % 11.53/2.27 transitive_ordering_ax % 11.53/2.27 % 11.53/2.27 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 11.53/2.27 --------------------------------- % 11.53/2.27 % 11.53/2.27 Begin of proof % 11.53/2.27 | % 11.53/2.27 | DELTA: instantiating (formula_9_constraint_0) with fresh symbols all_29_0, % 11.53/2.27 | all_29_1, all_29_2, all_29_3 gives: % 11.53/2.27 | (1) ~ (all_29_0 = all_29_2) & in(all_29_3, all_29_0, all_29_1) = 0 & % 11.53/2.27 | in(all_29_3, all_29_2, all_29_1) = 0 & general(all_29_0) & % 11.53/2.27 | general(all_29_1) & general(all_29_2) & general(all_29_3) % 11.53/2.27 | % 11.53/2.27 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 11.53/2.27 | (2) ~ (all_29_0 = all_29_2) % 11.53/2.27 | (3) general(all_29_3) % 11.53/2.27 | (4) general(all_29_2) % 11.53/2.27 | (5) general(all_29_1) % 11.53/2.27 | (6) general(all_29_0) % 11.53/2.27 | (7) in(all_29_3, all_29_2, all_29_1) = 0 % 11.53/2.27 | (8) in(all_29_3, all_29_0, all_29_1) = 0 % 11.53/2.27 | % 11.53/2.28 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (formula_6_constraint_0) with all_29_3, all_29_2, % 11.53/2.28 | all_29_1, all_29_0, simplifying with (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) % 11.53/2.28 | gives: % 11.53/2.28 | (9) all_29_0 = all_29_2 % 11.53/2.28 | % 11.53/2.28 | REDUCE: (2), (9) imply: % 11.53/2.28 | (10) $false % 11.53/2.28 | % 11.53/2.28 | CLOSE: (10) is inconsistent. % 11.53/2.28 | % 11.53/2.28 End of proof % 11.53/2.28 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 11.53/2.28 % 11.53/2.28 1669ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------