%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN051+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n010.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 : 600s % DateTime : Thu Jul 21 04:59:24 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 1.98s 1.14s % Output : Proof 2.50s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.04/0.14 % Problem : SYN051+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.04/0.14 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 03:02:45 EDT 2022 % 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime : % 0.47/0.62 ____ _ % 0.47/0.62 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.47/0.62 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.47/0.62 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.47/0.62 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.47/0.62 % 0.47/0.62 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.47/0.62 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.47/0.62 % 0.47/0.62 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.47/0.62 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.47/0.62 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.47/0.62 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.47/0.62 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.47/0.62 % 0.47/0.62 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.47/0.62 % 0.47/0.62 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.67/0.67 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.24/0.89 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.40/0.94 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.40/0.95 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.63/1.04 Prover 0: gave up % 1.63/1.04 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.63/1.05 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.80/1.09 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.98/1.14 Prover 1: proved (101ms) % 1.98/1.14 % 1.98/1.14 No countermodel exists, formula is valid % 1.98/1.14 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 1.98/1.14 % 1.98/1.14 Generating proof ... found it (size 15) % 2.34/1.28 % 2.34/1.28 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 2.34/1.28 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 2.34/1.28 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : ? [v3] : (big_f(v2) = v3 & big_f(v0) = v1 & ! [v4] : ! [v5] : ! [v6] : (v5 = v4 | ~ (big_f(v6) = v5) | ~ (big_f(v6) = v4)) & ! [v4] : ! [v5] : (v5 = 0 | ~ (big_f(v4) = v5) | p) & ! [v4] : ( ~ (big_f(v4) = 0) | ~ p) & ( ~ (v1 = 0) | p) & (v3 = 0 | ~ p)) % 2.34/1.31 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2, all_0_3_3 yields: % 2.34/1.31 | (1) big_f(all_0_1_1) = all_0_0_0 & big_f(all_0_3_3) = all_0_2_2 & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (big_f(v2) = v1) | ~ (big_f(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (big_f(v0) = v1) | p) & ! [v0] : ( ~ (big_f(v0) = 0) | ~ p) & ( ~ (all_0_2_2 = 0) | p) & (all_0_0_0 = 0 | ~ p) % 2.34/1.31 | % 2.34/1.31 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 2.34/1.32 | (2) big_f(all_0_1_1) = all_0_0_0 % 2.34/1.32 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (big_f(v2) = v1) | ~ (big_f(v2) = v0)) % 2.34/1.32 | (4) ! [v0] : ( ~ (big_f(v0) = 0) | ~ p) % 2.34/1.32 | (5) big_f(all_0_3_3) = all_0_2_2 % 2.34/1.32 | (6) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (big_f(v0) = v1) | p) % 2.34/1.32 | (7) ~ (all_0_2_2 = 0) | p % 2.34/1.32 | (8) all_0_0_0 = 0 | ~ p % 2.34/1.32 | % 2.34/1.32 | Instantiating formula (6) with all_0_2_2, all_0_3_3 and discharging atoms big_f(all_0_3_3) = all_0_2_2, yields: % 2.34/1.32 | (9) all_0_2_2 = 0 | p % 2.34/1.32 | % 2.34/1.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (8), into two cases. % 2.34/1.32 |-Branch one: % 2.34/1.32 | (10) ~ p % 2.34/1.32 | % 2.34/1.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (7), into two cases. % 2.34/1.32 |-Branch one: % 2.34/1.32 | (11) p % 2.34/1.32 | % 2.34/1.32 | Using (11) and (10) yields: % 2.34/1.32 | (12) $false % 2.34/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.50/1.32 |-Branch two: % 2.50/1.32 | (10) ~ p % 2.50/1.32 | (14) ~ (all_0_2_2 = 0) % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (9), into two cases. % 2.50/1.32 |-Branch one: % 2.50/1.32 | (11) p % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 | Using (11) and (10) yields: % 2.50/1.32 | (12) $false % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.50/1.32 |-Branch two: % 2.50/1.32 | (10) ~ p % 2.50/1.32 | (18) all_0_2_2 = 0 % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 | Equations (18) can reduce 14 to: % 2.50/1.32 | (19) $false % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.50/1.32 |-Branch two: % 2.50/1.32 | (11) p % 2.50/1.32 | (21) all_0_0_0 = 0 % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 | From (21) and (2) follows: % 2.50/1.32 | (22) big_f(all_0_1_1) = 0 % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 | Instantiating formula (4) with all_0_1_1 and discharging atoms big_f(all_0_1_1) = 0, p, yields: % 2.50/1.32 | (12) $false % 2.50/1.32 | % 2.50/1.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.50/1.32 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 2.50/1.33 % 2.50/1.33 692ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------