%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN074+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n029.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 04:59:43 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 5.22s 2.08s % Output : Proof 7.16s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.04/0.11 % Problem : SYN074+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.04/0.12 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n029.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 : 600 % 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 19:26:02 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.54/0.56 ____ _ % 0.54/0.56 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.54/0.56 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.54/0.56 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.54/0.56 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.54/0.56 % 0.54/0.56 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.54/0.57 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.54/0.57 % 0.54/0.57 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.54/0.57 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.54/0.57 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.54/0.57 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.54/0.57 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.54/0.57 % 0.54/0.57 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.54/0.57 % 0.54/0.57 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.61/0.62 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.22/0.84 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.31/0.92 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.31/0.93 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.65/1.03 Prover 0: gave up % 1.65/1.04 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.65/1.05 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.86/1.13 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.86/1.14 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.12/1.16 Prover 1: gave up % 2.12/1.16 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.12/1.18 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.27/1.21 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.27/1.21 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.27/1.24 Prover 2: gave up % 2.40/1.24 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.40/1.24 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.44/1.26 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.44/1.26 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.44/1.29 Prover 3: gave up % 2.44/1.29 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.44/1.29 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.65/1.34 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.65/1.34 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.82/1.40 Prover 4: gave up % 2.82/1.40 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.82/1.40 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.82/1.42 Prover 5: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.82/1.42 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.82/1.44 Prover 5: gave up % 2.82/1.44 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.07/1.45 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.07/1.46 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.07/1.47 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.07/1.48 Prover 6: gave up % 3.07/1.48 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.07/1.48 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.19/1.49 Prover 7: Proving ... % 5.22/2.08 Prover 7: proved (596ms) % 5.22/2.08 % 5.22/2.08 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 5.22/2.08 % 5.22/2.08 Generating proof ... found it (size 41) % 7.16/2.85 % 7.16/2.85 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 7.16/2.85 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 7.16/2.85 | (0) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ (v1 = v0) | ! [v2] : ? [v3] : (( ~ (v3 = v2) | ~ big_f(v0, v2)) & (v3 = v2 | big_f(v0, v3)))) & (v1 = v0 | ? [v2] : (big_f(v1, v2) & ! [v3] : (v3 = v2 | ~ big_f(v1, v3))))) & ? [v0] : ? [v1] : (big_f(v0, v1) & ! [v2] : ! [v3] : ( ~ big_f(v2, v3) | (v3 = v1 & v2 = v0))) % 7.16/2.85 | Applying alpha-rule on (0) yields: % 7.16/2.85 | (1) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ (v1 = v0) | ! [v2] : ? [v3] : (( ~ (v3 = v2) | ~ big_f(v0, v2)) & (v3 = v2 | big_f(v0, v3)))) & (v1 = v0 | ? [v2] : (big_f(v1, v2) & ! [v3] : (v3 = v2 | ~ big_f(v1, v3))))) % 7.16/2.86 | (2) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : (big_f(v0, v1) & ! [v2] : ! [v3] : ( ~ big_f(v2, v3) | (v3 = v1 & v2 = v0))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating (2) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (3) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ big_f(v0, v1) | (v1 = all_0_0_0 & v0 = all_0_1_1)) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Applying alpha-rule on (3) yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (4) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 7.16/2.86 | (5) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ big_f(v0, v1) | (v1 = all_0_0_0 & v0 = all_0_1_1)) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Introducing new symbol ex_9_0_2 defined by: % 7.16/2.86 | (6) ex_9_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating formula (1) with ex_9_0_2 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (7) ? [v0] : (( ~ (v0 = ex_9_0_2) | ! [v1] : ? [v2] : (( ~ (v2 = v1) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, v1)) & (v2 = v1 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, v2)))) & (v0 = ex_9_0_2 | ? [v1] : (big_f(v0, v1) & ! [v2] : (v2 = v1 | ~ big_f(v0, v2))))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating (7) with all_10_0_3 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (8) ( ~ (all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2) | ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ (v1 = v0) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, v0)) & (v1 = v0 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, v1)))) & (all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2 | ? [v0] : (big_f(all_10_0_3, v0) & ! [v1] : (v1 = v0 | ~ big_f(all_10_0_3, v1)))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Applying alpha-rule on (8) yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (9) ~ (all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2) | ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ (v1 = v0) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, v0)) & (v1 = v0 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, v1))) % 7.16/2.86 | (10) all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2 | ? [v0] : (big_f(all_10_0_3, v0) & ! [v1] : (v1 = v0 | ~ big_f(all_10_0_3, v1))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (10), into two cases. % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch one: % 7.16/2.86 | (11) all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (9), into two cases. % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch one: % 7.16/2.86 | (12) ~ (all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Equations (11) can reduce 12 to: % 7.16/2.86 | (13) $false % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch two: % 7.16/2.86 | (14) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ (v1 = v0) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, v0)) & (v1 = v0 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, v1))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Introducing new symbol ex_37_0_8 defined by: % 7.16/2.86 | (15) ex_37_0_8 = all_0_0_0 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating formula (14) with ex_37_0_8 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (16) ? [v0] : (( ~ (v0 = ex_37_0_8) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, ex_37_0_8)) & (v0 = ex_37_0_8 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, v0))) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating (16) with all_38_0_9 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (17) ( ~ (all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, ex_37_0_8)) & (all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, all_38_0_9)) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Applying alpha-rule on (17) yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (18) ~ (all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8) | ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.86 | (19) all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8 | big_f(ex_9_0_2, all_38_0_9) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (19), into two cases. % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch one: % 7.16/2.86 | (20) big_f(ex_9_0_2, all_38_0_9) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Instantiating formula (5) with all_38_0_9, ex_9_0_2 and discharging atoms big_f(ex_9_0_2, all_38_0_9), yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (21) all_38_0_9 = all_0_0_0 & ex_9_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Applying alpha-rule on (21) yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (22) all_38_0_9 = all_0_0_0 % 7.16/2.86 | (6) ex_9_0_2 = all_0_1_1 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (18), into two cases. % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch one: % 7.16/2.86 | (24) ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | From (6) and (24) follows: % 7.16/2.86 | (25) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | From (15) and (25) follows: % 7.16/2.86 | (26) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Using (4) and (26) yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (27) $false % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch two: % 7.16/2.86 | (28) ~ (all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Equations (22) can reduce 28 to: % 7.16/2.86 | (29) ~ (ex_37_0_8 = all_0_0_0) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Simplifying 29 yields: % 7.16/2.86 | (30) ~ (ex_37_0_8 = all_0_0_0) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | Equations (15) can reduce 30 to: % 7.16/2.86 | (13) $false % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch two: % 7.16/2.86 | (32) all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8 % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (18), into two cases. % 7.16/2.86 |-Branch one: % 7.16/2.86 | (24) ~ big_f(ex_9_0_2, ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.86 | % 7.16/2.86 | From (6)(15) and (24) follows: % 7.16/2.86 | (26) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Using (4) and (26) yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (27) $false % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.87 |-Branch two: % 7.16/2.87 | (28) ~ (all_38_0_9 = ex_37_0_8) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Equations (32) can reduce 28 to: % 7.16/2.87 | (13) $false % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.87 |-Branch two: % 7.16/2.87 | (12) ~ (all_10_0_3 = ex_9_0_2) % 7.16/2.87 | (39) ? [v0] : (big_f(all_10_0_3, v0) & ! [v1] : (v1 = v0 | ~ big_f(all_10_0_3, v1))) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Instantiating (39) with all_13_0_4 yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (40) big_f(all_10_0_3, all_13_0_4) & ! [v0] : (v0 = all_13_0_4 | ~ big_f(all_10_0_3, v0)) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Applying alpha-rule on (40) yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (41) big_f(all_10_0_3, all_13_0_4) % 7.16/2.87 | (42) ! [v0] : (v0 = all_13_0_4 | ~ big_f(all_10_0_3, v0)) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Instantiating formula (5) with all_13_0_4, all_10_0_3 and discharging atoms big_f(all_10_0_3, all_13_0_4), yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (43) all_13_0_4 = all_0_0_0 & all_10_0_3 = all_0_1_1 % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Applying alpha-rule on (43) yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (44) all_13_0_4 = all_0_0_0 % 7.16/2.87 | (45) all_10_0_3 = all_0_1_1 % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Equations (45) can reduce 12 to: % 7.16/2.87 | (46) ~ (ex_9_0_2 = all_0_1_1) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Simplifying 46 yields: % 7.16/2.87 | (47) ~ (ex_9_0_2 = all_0_1_1) % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 | Equations (6) can reduce 47 to: % 7.16/2.87 | (13) $false % 7.16/2.87 | % 7.16/2.87 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 7.16/2.87 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 7.16/2.87 % 7.16/2.87 2293ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------