%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 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 : n009.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 10:08:53 AM UTC 2025 % Result : Theorem 8.56s 1.93s % Output : Proof 10.43s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.10/0.11 % Problem : SWX000_1 : TPTP v9.1.0. Released v9.1.0. % 0.10/0.12 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Apr 6 02:52:11 EDT 2025 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.18/0.60 ________ _____ % 0.18/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.18/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.18/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.18/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.18/0.60 (2023-06-19) % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.18/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.18/0.60 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.18/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.63/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.73/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.73/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 3.26/1.19 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.21 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.23 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.23 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.23 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.23 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.48/1.23 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 6.44/1.67 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.44/1.69 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 6.89/1.69 Prover 5: Proving ... % 6.89/1.70 Prover 6: Proving ... % 6.89/1.70 Prover 2: Proving ... % 6.89/1.73 Prover 0: Proving ... % 6.89/1.74 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.56/1.93 Prover 3: proved (1299ms) % 8.56/1.93 % 8.56/1.93 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 8.56/1.93 % 8.56/1.93 Prover 2: stopped % 8.56/1.93 Prover 5: stopped % 8.56/1.94 Prover 0: stopped % 8.56/1.94 Prover 6: stopped % 8.56/1.95 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 8.56/1.95 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 8.56/1.95 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 8.56/1.95 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 8.56/1.95 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 8.98/2.03 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 8.98/2.05 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 9.46/2.06 Prover 4: Found proof (size 31) % 9.46/2.06 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 9.46/2.07 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 9.58/2.07 Prover 4: proved (1443ms) % 9.58/2.07 Prover 1: stopped % 9.58/2.08 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 9.58/2.09 Prover 10: stopped % 9.58/2.10 Prover 7: stopped % 9.85/2.12 Prover 11: stopped % 10.01/2.15 Prover 13: stopped % 10.01/2.18 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 10.01/2.19 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 10.01/2.20 Prover 8: stopped % 10.01/2.20 % 10.01/2.20 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.01/2.20 % 10.01/2.20 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 10.01/2.20 Assumptions after simplification: % 10.01/2.20 --------------------------------- % 10.01/2.21 % 10.01/2.21 (f__integer__def_ax) % 10.43/2.22 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : (v2 = v1 | ~ % 10.43/2.22 (f__integer__(v0) = v2) | ~ (f__integer__(v0) = v1)) & ! [v0: int] : ! % 10.43/2.22 [v1: int] : ! [v2: general] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (f__integer__(v1) = v2) | ~ % 10.43/2.22 (f__integer__(v0) = v2)) % 10.43/2.22 % 10.43/2.22 (formula_2_right_0) % 10.43/2.23 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: general] : ! % 10.43/2.23 [v4: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (tp(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ (tq(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ % 10.43/2.23 (f__integer__($sum(v4, -1)) = v3) | ~ general(v3) | ~ general(v1) | ~ % 10.43/2.23 general(v0) | ? [v5: general] : ( ~ (v5 = v1) & f__integer__(v4) = v5 & % 10.43/2.23 general(v5))) & ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: int] : ! % 10.43/2.23 [v3: general] : ! [v4: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (hp(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ (hq(v0, v1) % 10.43/2.23 = v2) | ~ (f__integer__($sum(v4, -1)) = v3) | ~ general(v3) | ~ % 10.43/2.23 general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ? [v5: general] : ( ~ (v5 = v1) & % 10.43/2.23 f__integer__(v4) = v5 & general(v5))) % 10.43/2.23 % 10.43/2.23 (formula_3_left_0) % 10.43/2.23 ? [v0: general] : ? [v1: general] : ? [v2: general] : ? [v3: any] : ? % 10.43/2.23 [v4: any] : ? [v5: general] : ? [v6: general] : ? [v7: int] : ? [v8: % 10.43/2.23 general] : ? [v9: general] : ? [v10: int] : ? [v11: int] : (tq(v0, v1) = % 10.43/2.23 v4 & hq(v0, v1) = v3 & f__integer__($sum(v11, 1)) = v1 & f__integer__(v11) = % 10.43/2.23 v2 & general(v9) & general(v8) & general(v6) & general(v5) & general(v2) & % 10.43/2.23 general(v1) & general(v0) & ((v10 = 0 & v9 = v2 & v8 = v0 & ~ (v3 = 0) & % 10.43/2.24 hp(v0, v2) = 0) | (v7 = 0 & v6 = v2 & v5 = v0 & ~ (v4 = 0) & tp(v0, v2) % 10.43/2.24 = 0))) % 10.43/2.24 % 10.43/2.24 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 10.43/2.24 -------------------------------------------- % 10.43/2.24 antisymmetric_ordering_ax, f__symbolic__def_ax, formula_0_transition_axiom_0, % 10.43/2.24 formula_1_transition_axiom_1, general_universe_ax, maximal_element_ax, % 10.43/2.24 minimal_element_ax, numeral_ordering_ax, numerals_less_than_symbols_ax, % 10.43/2.24 p__greater__def_ax, p__greater_equal__def_ax, p__is_integer__def_ax, % 10.43/2.24 p__is_symbolic__def_ax, p__less__def_ax, strongly_connected_ordering_ax, % 10.43/2.24 transitive_ordering_ax % 10.43/2.24 % 10.43/2.24 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 10.43/2.24 --------------------------------- % 10.43/2.24 % 10.43/2.24 Begin of proof % 10.43/2.24 | % 10.43/2.24 | ALPHA: (f__integer__def_ax) implies: % 10.43/2.24 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : (v2 = v1 | ~ % 10.43/2.24 | (f__integer__(v0) = v2) | ~ (f__integer__(v0) = v1)) % 10.43/2.24 | % 10.43/2.24 | ALPHA: (formula_2_right_0) implies: % 10.43/2.24 | (2) ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: general] : % 10.43/2.24 | ! [v4: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (hp(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ (hq(v0, v1) = v2) | % 10.43/2.24 | ~ (f__integer__($sum(v4, -1)) = v3) | ~ general(v3) | ~ general(v1) % 10.43/2.24 | | ~ general(v0) | ? [v5: general] : ( ~ (v5 = v1) & % 10.43/2.24 | f__integer__(v4) = v5 & general(v5))) % 10.43/2.24 | (3) ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: general] : % 10.43/2.24 | ! [v4: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (tp(v0, v3) = 0) | ~ (tq(v0, v1) = v2) | % 10.43/2.24 | ~ (f__integer__($sum(v4, -1)) = v3) | ~ general(v3) | ~ general(v1) % 10.43/2.24 | | ~ general(v0) | ? [v5: general] : ( ~ (v5 = v1) & % 10.43/2.24 | f__integer__(v4) = v5 & general(v5))) % 10.43/2.24 | % 10.43/2.25 | DELTA: instantiating (formula_3_left_0) with fresh symbols all_26_0, all_26_1, % 10.43/2.25 | all_26_2, all_26_3, all_26_4, all_26_5, all_26_6, all_26_7, all_26_8, % 10.43/2.25 | all_26_9, all_26_10, all_26_11 gives: % 10.43/2.25 | (4) tq(all_26_11, all_26_10) = all_26_7 & hq(all_26_11, all_26_10) = % 10.43/2.25 | all_26_8 & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = all_26_10 & % 10.43/2.25 | f__integer__(all_26_0) = all_26_9 & general(all_26_2) & % 10.43/2.25 | general(all_26_3) & general(all_26_5) & general(all_26_6) & % 10.43/2.25 | general(all_26_9) & general(all_26_10) & general(all_26_11) & % 10.43/2.25 | ((all_26_1 = 0 & all_26_2 = all_26_9 & all_26_3 = all_26_11 & ~ % 10.43/2.25 | (all_26_8 = 0) & hp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0) | (all_26_4 = 0 & % 10.43/2.25 | all_26_5 = all_26_9 & all_26_6 = all_26_11 & ~ (all_26_7 = 0) & % 10.43/2.25 | tp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0)) % 10.43/2.25 | % 10.43/2.25 | ALPHA: (4) implies: % 10.43/2.25 | (5) general(all_26_10) % 10.43/2.25 | (6) general(all_26_6) % 10.43/2.25 | (7) general(all_26_5) % 10.43/2.25 | (8) general(all_26_3) % 10.43/2.25 | (9) general(all_26_2) % 10.43/2.25 | (10) f__integer__(all_26_0) = all_26_9 % 10.43/2.25 | (11) f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = all_26_10 % 10.43/2.25 | (12) hq(all_26_11, all_26_10) = all_26_8 % 10.43/2.25 | (13) tq(all_26_11, all_26_10) = all_26_7 % 10.43/2.25 | (14) (all_26_1 = 0 & all_26_2 = all_26_9 & all_26_3 = all_26_11 & ~ % 10.43/2.25 | (all_26_8 = 0) & hp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0) | (all_26_4 = 0 & % 10.43/2.25 | all_26_5 = all_26_9 & all_26_6 = all_26_11 & ~ (all_26_7 = 0) & % 10.43/2.25 | tp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0) % 10.43/2.25 | % 10.43/2.25 | BETA: splitting (14) gives: % 10.43/2.25 | % 10.43/2.25 | Case 1: % 10.43/2.25 | | % 10.43/2.25 | | (15) all_26_1 = 0 & all_26_2 = all_26_9 & all_26_3 = all_26_11 & ~ % 10.43/2.25 | | (all_26_8 = 0) & hp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0 % 10.43/2.25 | | % 10.43/2.25 | | ALPHA: (15) implies: % 10.43/2.25 | | (16) all_26_3 = all_26_11 % 10.43/2.25 | | (17) all_26_2 = all_26_9 % 10.43/2.25 | | (18) ~ (all_26_8 = 0) % 10.43/2.25 | | (19) hp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0 % 10.43/2.25 | | % 10.43/2.25 | | REDUCE: (9), (17) imply: % 10.43/2.25 | | (20) general(all_26_9) % 10.43/2.25 | | % 10.43/2.25 | | REDUCE: (8), (16) imply: % 10.43/2.25 | | (21) general(all_26_11) % 10.43/2.25 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_26_11, all_26_10, all_26_8, % 10.43/2.26 | | all_26_9, $sum(all_26_0, 1), simplifying with (5), (10), (12), % 10.43/2.26 | | (19), (20), (21) gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | (22) all_26_8 = 0 | ? [v0: any] : ( ~ (v0 = all_26_10) & % 10.43/2.26 | | f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = v0 & general(v0)) % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | BETA: splitting (22) gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | Case 1: % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | (23) all_26_8 = 0 % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | REDUCE: (18), (23) imply: % 10.43/2.26 | | | (24) $false % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | CLOSE: (24) is inconsistent. % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | Case 2: % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | (25) ? [v0: any] : ( ~ (v0 = all_26_10) & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, % 10.43/2.26 | | | 1)) = v0 & general(v0)) % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | DELTA: instantiating (25) with fresh symbol all_74_0 gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | | (26) ~ (all_74_0 = all_26_10) & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = % 10.43/2.26 | | | all_74_0 & general(all_74_0) % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (11), (26) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | End of split % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | Case 2: % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | (27) all_26_4 = 0 & all_26_5 = all_26_9 & all_26_6 = all_26_11 & ~ % 10.43/2.26 | | (all_26_7 = 0) & tp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0 % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | ALPHA: (27) implies: % 10.43/2.26 | | (28) all_26_6 = all_26_11 % 10.43/2.26 | | (29) all_26_5 = all_26_9 % 10.43/2.26 | | (30) ~ (all_26_7 = 0) % 10.43/2.26 | | (31) tp(all_26_11, all_26_9) = 0 % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | REDUCE: (7), (29) imply: % 10.43/2.26 | | (32) general(all_26_9) % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | REDUCE: (6), (28) imply: % 10.43/2.26 | | (33) general(all_26_11) % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_26_11, all_26_10, all_26_7, % 10.43/2.26 | | all_26_9, $sum(all_26_0, 1), simplifying with (5), (10), (13), % 10.43/2.26 | | (31), (32), (33) gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | (34) all_26_7 = 0 | ? [v0: any] : ( ~ (v0 = all_26_10) & % 10.43/2.26 | | f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = v0 & general(v0)) % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | BETA: splitting (34) gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | % 10.43/2.26 | | Case 1: % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | (35) all_26_7 = 0 % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | REDUCE: (30), (35) imply: % 10.43/2.26 | | | (36) $false % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | CLOSE: (36) is inconsistent. % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | Case 2: % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | (37) ? [v0: any] : ( ~ (v0 = all_26_10) & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, % 10.43/2.26 | | | 1)) = v0 & general(v0)) % 10.43/2.26 | | | % 10.43/2.26 | | | DELTA: instantiating (37) with fresh symbol all_74_0 gives: % 10.43/2.26 | | | (38) ~ (all_74_0 = all_26_10) & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = % 10.43/2.26 | | | all_74_0 & general(all_74_0) % 10.43/2.27 | | | % 10.43/2.27 | | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (11), (38) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1. % 10.43/2.27 | | | % 10.43/2.27 | | End of split % 10.43/2.27 | | % 10.43/2.27 | End of split % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 End of proof % 10.43/2.27 % 10.43/2.27 Sub-proof #1 shows that the following formulas are inconsistent: % 10.43/2.27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- % 10.43/2.27 (1) ~ (all_74_0 = all_26_10) & f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = all_74_0 & % 10.43/2.27 general(all_74_0) % 10.43/2.27 (2) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : (v2 = v1 | ~ % 10.43/2.27 (f__integer__(v0) = v2) | ~ (f__integer__(v0) = v1)) % 10.43/2.27 (3) f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = all_26_10 % 10.43/2.27 % 10.43/2.27 Begin of proof % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 10.43/2.27 | (4) ~ (all_74_0 = all_26_10) % 10.43/2.27 | (5) f__integer__($sum(all_26_0, 1)) = all_74_0 % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with $sum(all_26_0, 1), all_26_10, all_74_0, % 10.43/2.27 | simplifying with (3), (5) gives: % 10.43/2.27 | (6) all_74_0 = all_26_10 % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 | REDUCE: (4), (6) imply: % 10.43/2.27 | (7) $false % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 | CLOSE: (7) is inconsistent. % 10.43/2.27 | % 10.43/2.27 End of proof % 10.43/2.27 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 10.43/2.27 % 10.43/2.27 1667ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------