%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 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 : n023.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 10.61s 2.07s % Output : Proof 13.96s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SWX000_1 : TPTP v9.1.0. Released v9.1.0. % 0.12/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Apr 6 02:53:24 EDT 2025 % 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.65/0.62 ________ _____ % 0.65/0.62 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.65/0.62 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.65/0.62 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.65/0.62 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.65/0.62 % 0.65/0.62 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.65/0.62 (2023-06-19) % 0.65/0.62 % 0.65/0.62 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.65/0.62 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.65/0.62 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.65/0.62 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.65/0.62 % 0.65/0.62 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.65/0.62 % 0.65/0.62 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.68/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.68/0.65 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 0.68/0.65 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 4.20/1.25 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.25 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.28 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.28 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.28 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.28 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 4.20/1.28 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 8.30/1.79 Prover 5: Proving ... % 8.30/1.79 Prover 2: Proving ... % 8.53/1.81 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.53/1.82 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.53/1.82 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 8.53/1.82 Prover 6: Proving ... % 8.74/1.83 Prover 0: Proving ... % 8.74/1.83 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 8.74/1.84 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 9.97/2.03 Prover 3: gave up % 9.97/2.04 Prover 1: gave up % 9.97/2.04 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 9.97/2.05 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 10.61/2.07 Prover 2: proved (1431ms) % 10.61/2.07 % 10.61/2.07 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.61/2.07 % 10.61/2.08 Prover 0: stopped % 10.61/2.08 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 10.61/2.08 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 10.61/2.08 Prover 6: stopped % 10.61/2.08 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 10.61/2.08 Prover 5: stopped % 10.85/2.11 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 11.05/2.19 Prover 4: gave up % 11.05/2.21 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085 % 11.05/2.21 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 11.79/2.26 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 11.79/2.27 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 11.79/2.27 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 11.79/2.29 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 12.38/2.31 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 12.38/2.33 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 12.38/2.34 Prover 19: Preprocessing ... % 12.38/2.34 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.38/2.36 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 12.38/2.36 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 12.38/2.37 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 12.98/2.37 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 13.32/2.44 Prover 16: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 13.32/2.45 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ... % 13.32/2.45 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 13.32/2.45 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 13.32/2.46 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 13.32/2.48 Prover 13: Found proof (size 17) % 13.32/2.48 Prover 13: proved (397ms) % 13.32/2.48 Prover 7: stopped % 13.32/2.48 Prover 8: stopped % 13.32/2.48 Prover 16: stopped % 13.32/2.48 Prover 10: stopped % 13.32/2.48 Prover 11: stopped % 13.96/2.51 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 13.96/2.53 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ... % 13.96/2.53 Prover 19: stopped % 13.96/2.53 % 13.96/2.53 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 13.96/2.53 % 13.96/2.54 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 13.96/2.54 Assumptions after simplification: % 13.96/2.54 --------------------------------- % 13.96/2.54 % 13.96/2.54 (formula_10_constraint_1) % 13.96/2.56 ? [v0: general] : ? [v1: general] : ? [v2: int] : ($lesseq(v2, h_i) & % 13.96/2.56 $lesseq(0, v2) & f__integer__(v2) = v1 & general(v1) & general(v0) & % 13.96/2.56 person(v0) & ~ in_building(v0, v1)) % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 (formula_4_completed_definition_of_in_building_2) % 13.96/2.56 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : ( ~ general(v2) | ~ % 13.96/2.56 general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ~ in(v0, v2, v1) | in_building(v0, v1)) & ! % 13.96/2.56 [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ( ~ general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ~ % 13.96/2.56 in_building(v0, v1) | ? [v2: general] : (general(v2) & in(v0, v2, v1))) % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 (formula_5_completed_definition_of_in_building_2) % 13.96/2.56 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : ( ~ general(v2) | ~ % 13.96/2.56 general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ~ in(v0, v2, v1) | in_building_p(v0, v1)) & % 13.96/2.56 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ( ~ general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ~ % 13.96/2.56 in_building_p(v0, v1) | ? [v2: general] : (general(v2) & in(v0, v2, v1))) % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 (formula_7_constraint_1) % 13.96/2.56 ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v2, h_i)) | % 13.96/2.56 ~ ($lesseq(0, v2)) | ~ (f__integer__(v2) = v1) | ~ general(v1) | ~ % 13.96/2.56 general(v0) | ~ person(v0) | in_building_p(v0, v1)) % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 13.96/2.56 -------------------------------------------- % 13.96/2.56 antisymmetric_ordering_ax, f__integer__def_ax, f__symbolic__def_ax, % 13.96/2.56 formula_0_unnamed_formula, formula_1_unnamed_formula, formula_2_unnamed_formula, % 13.96/2.56 formula_3_completed_definition_of_go_2, formula_6_constraint_0, % 13.96/2.56 formula_8_completed_definition_of_in_3, formula_9_constraint_0, % 13.96/2.56 general_universe_ax, maximal_element_ax, minimal_element_ax, % 13.96/2.56 numeral_ordering_ax, numerals_less_than_symbols_ax, p__greater__def_ax, % 13.96/2.56 p__greater_equal__def_ax, p__is_integer__def_ax, p__is_symbolic__def_ax, % 13.96/2.56 p__less__def_ax, strongly_connected_ordering_ax, transitive_ordering_ax % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 13.96/2.56 --------------------------------- % 13.96/2.56 % 13.96/2.56 Begin of proof % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | ALPHA: (formula_4_completed_definition_of_in_building_2) implies: % 13.96/2.57 | (1) ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ! [v2: general] : ( ~ % 13.96/2.57 | general(v2) | ~ general(v1) | ~ general(v0) | ~ in(v0, v2, v1) | % 13.96/2.57 | in_building(v0, v1)) % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | ALPHA: (formula_5_completed_definition_of_in_building_2) implies: % 13.96/2.57 | (2) ! [v0: general] : ! [v1: general] : ( ~ general(v1) | ~ general(v0) % 13.96/2.57 | | ~ in_building_p(v0, v1) | ? [v2: general] : (general(v2) & in(v0, % 13.96/2.57 | v2, v1))) % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | DELTA: instantiating (formula_10_constraint_1) with fresh symbols all_32_0, % 13.96/2.57 | all_32_1, all_32_2 gives: % 13.96/2.57 | (3) $lesseq(all_32_0, h_i) & $lesseq(0, all_32_0) & f__integer__(all_32_0) % 13.96/2.57 | = all_32_1 & general(all_32_1) & general(all_32_2) & person(all_32_2) & % 13.96/2.57 | ~ in_building(all_32_2, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | ALPHA: (3) implies: % 13.96/2.57 | (4) $lesseq(0, all_32_0) % 13.96/2.57 | (5) $lesseq(all_32_0, h_i) % 13.96/2.57 | (6) ~ in_building(all_32_2, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | (7) person(all_32_2) % 13.96/2.57 | (8) general(all_32_2) % 13.96/2.57 | (9) general(all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | (10) f__integer__(all_32_0) = all_32_1 % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (formula_7_constraint_1) with all_32_2, all_32_1, % 13.96/2.57 | all_32_0, simplifying with (7), (8), (9), (10) gives: % 13.96/2.57 | (11) ~ ($lesseq(all_32_0, h_i)) | ~ ($lesseq(0, all_32_0)) | % 13.96/2.57 | in_building_p(all_32_2, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | BETA: splitting (11) gives: % 13.96/2.57 | % 13.96/2.57 | Case 1: % 13.96/2.57 | | % 13.96/2.57 | | (12) in_building_p(all_32_2, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | | % 13.96/2.57 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_32_2, all_32_1, simplifying with % 13.96/2.57 | | (8), (9), (12) gives: % 13.96/2.57 | | (13) ? [v0: general] : (general(v0) & in(all_32_2, v0, all_32_1)) % 13.96/2.57 | | % 13.96/2.57 | | DELTA: instantiating (13) with fresh symbol all_69_0 gives: % 13.96/2.57 | | (14) general(all_69_0) & in(all_32_2, all_69_0, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | | % 13.96/2.57 | | ALPHA: (14) implies: % 13.96/2.57 | | (15) in(all_32_2, all_69_0, all_32_1) % 13.96/2.57 | | (16) general(all_69_0) % 13.96/2.57 | | % 13.96/2.58 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_32_2, all_32_1, all_69_0, % 13.96/2.58 | | simplifying with (6), (8), (9), (15), (16) gives: % 13.96/2.58 | | (17) $false % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | Case 2: % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | | (18) ~ ($lesseq(all_32_0, h_i)) | ~ ($lesseq(0, all_32_0)) % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | | BETA: splitting (18) gives: % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | | Case 1: % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | (19) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_32_0, h_i)) % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (5), (19) imply: % 13.96/2.58 | | | (20) $false % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | CLOSE: (20) is inconsistent. % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | Case 2: % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | (21) $lesseq(all_32_0, -1) % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (4), (21) imply: % 13.96/2.58 | | | (22) $false % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | | CLOSE: (22) is inconsistent. % 13.96/2.58 | | | % 13.96/2.58 | | End of split % 13.96/2.58 | | % 13.96/2.58 | End of split % 13.96/2.58 | % 13.96/2.58 End of proof % 13.96/2.58 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 13.96/2.58 % 13.96/2.58 1956ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------