%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN327+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n013.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 05:01:24 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 3.40s 1.66s % Output : Proof 3.84s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.12 % Problem : SYN327+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.11/0.13 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 04:28:30 EDT 2022 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.18/0.59 ____ _ % 0.18/0.59 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.18/0.59 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.18/0.59 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.18/0.59 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.18/0.59 % 0.18/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.18/0.60 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.18/0.60 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.18/0.60 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.18/0.60 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.18/0.60 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.18/0.60 % 0.18/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.71/0.64 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.28/0.89 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.38/0.95 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.38/0.96 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.81/1.10 Prover 0: gave up % 1.81/1.10 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.81/1.12 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.81/1.15 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.81/1.16 Prover 1: gave up % 1.81/1.16 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.81/1.17 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.23/1.22 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.31/1.23 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.32/1.25 Prover 2: gave up % 2.32/1.25 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.32/1.26 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.32/1.28 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.32/1.28 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.54/1.34 Prover 3: gave up % 2.54/1.34 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.54/1.34 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.74/1.37 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.74/1.37 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.74/1.43 Prover 4: gave up % 2.74/1.43 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.74/1.44 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.74/1.45 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.74/1.46 Prover 5: gave up % 2.74/1.46 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.74/1.46 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.06/1.48 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.06/1.48 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.06/1.48 Prover 6: gave up % 3.06/1.48 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.06/1.49 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.15/1.49 Prover 7: Proving ... % 3.40/1.66 Prover 7: proved (179ms) % 3.40/1.66 % 3.40/1.66 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 3.40/1.66 % 3.40/1.66 Generating proof ... found it (size 20) % 3.84/1.83 % 3.84/1.83 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 3.84/1.83 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 3.84/1.83 | (0) ? [v0] : ! [v1] : ? [v2] : (big_f(v1, v0) & ((big_f(v0, v2) & ~ big_f(v0, v1)) | (big_f(v0, v1) & ~ big_f(v2, v1) & ~ big_f(v0, v2)))) % 3.84/1.83 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0 yields: % 3.84/1.83 | (1) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (big_f(v0, all_0_0_0) & ((big_f(all_0_0_0, v1) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, v0)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, v0) & ~ big_f(v1, v0) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, v1)))) % 3.84/1.83 | % 3.84/1.83 | Introducing new symbol ex_2_0_1 defined by: % 3.84/1.83 | (2) ex_2_0_1 = all_0_0_0 % 3.84/1.83 | % 3.84/1.83 | Instantiating formula (1) with ex_2_0_1 yields: % 3.84/1.83 | (3) ? [v0] : (big_f(ex_2_0_1, all_0_0_0) & ((big_f(all_0_0_0, v0) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(v0, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, v0)))) % 3.84/1.83 | % 3.84/1.83 | Instantiating (3) with all_3_0_2 yields: % 3.84/1.83 | (4) big_f(ex_2_0_1, all_0_0_0) & ((big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_3_0_2, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2))) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Applying alpha-rule on (4) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (5) big_f(ex_2_0_1, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | (6) (big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_3_0_2, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2)) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (6), into two cases. % 3.84/1.84 |-Branch one: % 3.84/1.84 | (7) big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Applying alpha-rule on (7) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (8) big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) % 3.84/1.84 | (9) ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | From (2) and (5) follows: % 3.84/1.84 | (10) big_f(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | From (2) and (9) follows: % 3.84/1.84 | (11) ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Using (10) and (11) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (12) $false % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 3.84/1.84 |-Branch two: % 3.84/1.84 | (13) big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_3_0_2, ex_2_0_1) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Applying alpha-rule on (13) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (14) big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_2_0_1) % 3.84/1.84 | (15) ~ big_f(all_3_0_2, ex_2_0_1) % 3.84/1.84 | (16) ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_3_0_2) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Introducing new symbol ex_18_0_3 defined by: % 3.84/1.84 | (17) ex_18_0_3 = all_3_0_2 % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Instantiating formula (1) with ex_18_0_3 yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (18) ? [v0] : (big_f(ex_18_0_3, all_0_0_0) & ((big_f(all_0_0_0, v0) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(v0, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, v0)))) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Instantiating (18) with all_19_0_4 yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (19) big_f(ex_18_0_3, all_0_0_0) & ((big_f(all_0_0_0, all_19_0_4) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(all_19_0_4, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_19_0_4))) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Applying alpha-rule on (19) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (20) big_f(ex_18_0_3, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | (21) (big_f(all_0_0_0, all_19_0_4) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3)) | (big_f(all_0_0_0, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(all_19_0_4, ex_18_0_3) & ~ big_f(all_0_0_0, all_19_0_4)) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | From (17) and (20) follows: % 3.84/1.84 | (22) big_f(all_3_0_2, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | From (2) and (15) follows: % 3.84/1.84 | (23) ~ big_f(all_3_0_2, all_0_0_0) % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 | Using (22) and (23) yields: % 3.84/1.84 | (12) $false % 3.84/1.84 | % 3.84/1.84 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 3.84/1.84 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 3.84/1.84 % 3.84/1.84 1239ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------