%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN072+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n011.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 04:59:42 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 7.39s 3.05s % Output : Proof 10.26s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYN072+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.07/0.13 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 01:08:27 EDT 2022 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.62/0.60 ____ _ % 0.62/0.60 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.62/0.60 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.62/0.60 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.62/0.60 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.62/0.60 % 0.62/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.62/0.60 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.62/0.60 % 0.62/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.62/0.60 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.62/0.60 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.62/0.60 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.62/0.60 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.62/0.60 % 0.62/0.60 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.62/0.60 % 0.62/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.67/0.68 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.33/0.93 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.33/0.97 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.33/0.99 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.47/1.07 Prover 0: gave up % 1.70/1.08 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.70/1.09 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.70/1.12 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.70/1.13 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.70/1.17 Prover 1: gave up % 1.70/1.17 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.70/1.18 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.17/1.20 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.17/1.20 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.28/1.23 Prover 2: gave up % 2.28/1.23 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.28/1.24 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.28/1.24 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.28/1.24 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.41/1.26 Prover 3: gave up % 2.41/1.26 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.41/1.26 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.41/1.28 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.41/1.28 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.41/1.30 Prover 4: gave up % 2.41/1.30 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.41/1.31 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.41/1.31 Prover 5: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.41/1.32 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.41/1.34 Prover 5: gave up % 2.41/1.34 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.69/1.34 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.69/1.35 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.69/1.35 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.69/1.37 Prover 6: gave up % 2.69/1.37 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.69/1.38 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 2.69/1.38 Prover 7: Proving ... % 7.39/3.05 Prover 7: proved (1675ms) % 7.39/3.05 % 7.39/3.05 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 7.39/3.05 % 7.39/3.05 Generating proof ... found it (size 57) % 10.26/4.31 % 10.26/4.31 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 10.26/4.31 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 10.26/4.31 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ( ~ (v1 = v0) & big_p(v1) & big_p(v0) & ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ! [v4] : (v4 = v3 | v4 = v2) & ? [v2] : ~ big_p(v2)) % 10.26/4.31 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1 yields: % 10.26/4.31 | (1) ~ (all_0_0_0 = all_0_1_1) & big_p(all_0_0_0) & big_p(all_0_1_1) & ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ! [v2] : (v2 = v1 | v2 = v0) & ? [v0] : ~ big_p(v0) % 10.26/4.31 | % 10.26/4.31 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 10.26/4.31 | (2) big_p(all_0_0_0) % 10.26/4.31 | (3) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ! [v2] : (v2 = v1 | v2 = v0) % 10.26/4.31 | (4) big_p(all_0_1_1) % 10.26/4.31 | (5) ~ (all_0_0_0 = all_0_1_1) % 10.26/4.31 | (6) ? [v0] : ~ big_p(v0) % 10.26/4.31 | % 10.26/4.31 | Instantiating (6) with all_2_0_2 yields: % 10.26/4.31 | (7) ~ big_p(all_2_0_2) % 10.26/4.31 | % 10.26/4.31 | Instantiating (3) with all_4_0_3, all_4_1_4 yields: % 10.26/4.31 | (8) ! [v0] : (v0 = all_4_0_3 | v0 = all_4_1_4) % 10.26/4.31 | % 10.26/4.31 | Introducing new symbol ex_11_0_5 defined by: % 10.26/4.31 | (9) ex_11_0_5 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.31 | % 10.26/4.31 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_11_0_5 yields: % 10.26/4.31 | (10) ex_11_0_5 = all_4_0_3 | ex_11_0_5 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (10), into two cases. % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch one: % 10.26/4.32 | (11) ex_11_0_5 = all_4_0_3 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Introducing new symbol ex_18_0_6 defined by: % 10.26/4.32 | (12) ex_18_0_6 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_18_0_6 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (13) ex_18_0_6 = all_4_0_3 | ex_18_0_6 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (13), into two cases. % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch one: % 10.26/4.32 | (14) ex_18_0_6 = all_4_0_3 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (12,14) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (15) all_4_0_3 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (9,11) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (16) all_4_0_3 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (16,15) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (17) all_2_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Simplifying 17 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (18) all_2_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | From (18) and (7) follows: % 10.26/4.32 | (19) ~ big_p(all_0_0_0) % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Using (2) and (19) yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (20) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch two: % 10.26/4.32 | (21) ex_18_0_6 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Introducing new symbol ex_25_0_7 defined by: % 10.26/4.32 | (22) ex_25_0_7 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_25_0_7 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (23) ex_25_0_7 = all_4_0_3 | ex_25_0_7 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (23), into two cases. % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch one: % 10.26/4.32 | (24) ex_25_0_7 = all_4_0_3 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (22,24) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (25) all_4_0_3 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (9,11) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (16) all_4_0_3 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (16,25) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (27) all_2_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Simplifying 27 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (28) all_2_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | From (28) and (7) follows: % 10.26/4.32 | (29) ~ big_p(all_0_1_1) % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Using (4) and (29) yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (20) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch two: % 10.26/4.32 | (31) ex_25_0_7 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (22,31) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (32) all_4_1_4 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (12,21) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (33) all_4_1_4 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (32,33) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (34) all_0_0_0 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Equations (34) can reduce 5 to: % 10.26/4.32 | (35) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch two: % 10.26/4.32 | (36) ex_11_0_5 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Introducing new symbol ex_18_0_8 defined by: % 10.26/4.32 | (37) ex_18_0_8 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_18_0_8 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (38) ex_18_0_8 = all_4_0_3 | ex_18_0_8 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (38), into two cases. % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch one: % 10.26/4.32 | (39) ex_18_0_8 = all_4_0_3 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Introducing new symbol ex_25_0_9 defined by: % 10.26/4.32 | (40) ex_25_0_9 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_25_0_9 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (41) ex_25_0_9 = all_4_0_3 | ex_25_0_9 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (41), into two cases. % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch one: % 10.26/4.32 | (42) ex_25_0_9 = all_4_0_3 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (40,42) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (25) all_4_0_3 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (37,39) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (15) all_4_0_3 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (25,15) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (34) all_0_0_0 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Equations (34) can reduce 5 to: % 10.26/4.32 | (35) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch two: % 10.26/4.32 | (47) ex_25_0_9 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (40,47) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (32) all_4_1_4 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (9,36) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (49) all_4_1_4 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (32,49) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (28) all_2_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | From (28) and (7) follows: % 10.26/4.32 | (29) ~ big_p(all_0_1_1) % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Using (4) and (29) yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (20) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 |-Branch two: % 10.26/4.32 | (53) ex_18_0_8 = all_4_1_4 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (37,53) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (33) all_4_1_4 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (36,9) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (55) all_4_1_4 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Simplifying 55 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (49) all_4_1_4 = all_2_0_2 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Combining equations (49,33) yields a new equation: % 10.26/4.32 | (17) all_2_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Simplifying 17 yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (18) all_2_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | From (18) and (7) follows: % 10.26/4.32 | (19) ~ big_p(all_0_0_0) % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 | Using (2) and (19) yields: % 10.26/4.32 | (20) $false % 10.26/4.32 | % 10.26/4.32 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 10.26/4.32 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 10.26/4.32 % 10.26/4.32 3705ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------