%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN351+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n027.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 05:01:41 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 4.26s 1.71s % Output : Proof 4.82s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.11 % Problem : SYN351+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.03/0.12 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.12/0.32 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.32 % 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 : Tue Jul 12 06:40:34 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.54/0.59 ____ _ % 0.54/0.59 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.54/0.59 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.54/0.59 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.54/0.59 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.54/0.59 % 0.54/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.54/0.59 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.54/0.59 % 0.54/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.54/0.59 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.54/0.59 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.54/0.59 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.54/0.59 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.54/0.59 % 0.54/0.59 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.54/0.59 % 0.54/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.69/0.65 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.30/0.87 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.45/0.92 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.45/0.94 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.54/1.03 Prover 0: gave up % 1.54/1.03 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.80/1.05 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.99/1.11 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.99/1.12 Prover 1: gave up % 1.99/1.12 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.99/1.13 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.32/1.18 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.32/1.18 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.32/1.20 Prover 2: gave up % 2.32/1.20 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.32/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.50/1.22 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.50/1.22 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.50/1.24 Prover 3: gave up % 2.50/1.24 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.50/1.25 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.59/1.30 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.59/1.30 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.99/1.42 Prover 4: gave up % 2.99/1.42 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.99/1.42 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.27/1.45 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.27/1.46 Prover 5: gave up % 3.27/1.46 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.27/1.46 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.36/1.48 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.36/1.49 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.36/1.49 Prover 6: gave up % 3.36/1.49 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.36/1.50 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.36/1.51 Prover 7: Proving ... % 4.26/1.70 Prover 7: proved (210ms) % 4.26/1.70 % 4.26/1.71 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 4.26/1.71 % 4.26/1.71 Generating proof ... found it (size 22) % 4.82/1.90 % 4.82/1.90 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 4.82/1.90 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 4.82/1.90 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ! [v2] : ! [v3] : ? [v4] : (big_f(v2, v1, v2, v3) & big_f(v0, v3, v0, v4) & big_f(v0, v2, v0, v3) & ((big_f(v0, v4, v2, v4) & ~ big_f(v0, v3, v2, v3)) | (big_f(v0, v3, v2, v3) & ~ big_f(v0, v4, v2, v4)))) % 4.82/1.90 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1 yields: % 4.82/1.90 | (1) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ? [v2] : (big_f(v0, all_0_0_0, v0, v1) & big_f(all_0_1_1, v1, all_0_1_1, v2) & big_f(all_0_1_1, v0, all_0_1_1, v1) & ((big_f(all_0_1_1, v2, v0, v2) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, v1, v0, v1)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, v1, v0, v1) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, v2, v0, v2)))) % 4.82/1.90 | % 4.82/1.90 | Introducing new symbol ex_2_1_3 defined by: % 4.82/1.90 | (2) ex_2_1_3 = all_0_1_1 % 4.82/1.90 | % 4.82/1.90 | Introducing new symbol ex_2_0_2 defined by: % 4.82/1.90 | (3) ex_2_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 4.82/1.90 | % 4.82/1.90 | Instantiating formula (1) with ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3 yields: % 4.82/1.90 | (4) ? [v0] : (big_f(ex_2_1_3, all_0_0_0, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, all_0_1_1, v0) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_1_3, all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2) & ((big_f(all_0_1_1, v0, ex_2_1_3, v0) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, v0, ex_2_1_3, v0)))) % 4.82/1.90 | % 4.82/1.90 | Instantiating (4) with all_3_0_4 yields: % 4.82/1.90 | (5) big_f(ex_2_1_3, all_0_0_0, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_1_3, all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2) & ((big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4))) % 4.82/1.90 | % 4.82/1.90 | Applying alpha-rule on (5) yields: % 4.82/1.90 | (6) big_f(ex_2_1_3, all_0_0_0, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) % 4.82/1.91 | (7) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | (8) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_1_3, all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2) % 4.82/1.91 | (9) (big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4)) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (9), into two cases. % 4.82/1.91 |-Branch one: % 4.82/1.91 | (10) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Applying alpha-rule on (10) yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (11) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | (12) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | From (2)(2)(3) and (6) follows: % 4.82/1.91 | (13) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | From (3)(2)(3) and (12) follows: % 4.82/1.91 | (14) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Using (13) and (14) yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (15) $false % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 4.82/1.91 |-Branch two: % 4.82/1.91 | (16) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Applying alpha-rule on (16) yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (17) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_2_0_2, ex_2_1_3, ex_2_0_2) % 4.82/1.91 | (18) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, ex_2_1_3, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Introducing new symbol ex_18_1_6 defined by: % 4.82/1.91 | (19) ex_18_1_6 = all_3_0_4 % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Introducing new symbol ex_18_0_5 defined by: % 4.82/1.91 | (20) ex_18_0_5 = all_3_0_4 % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Instantiating formula (1) with ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6 yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (21) ? [v0] : (big_f(ex_18_1_6, all_0_0_0, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, all_0_1_1, v0) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_1_6, all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5) & ((big_f(all_0_1_1, v0, ex_18_1_6, v0) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, v0, ex_18_1_6, v0)))) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Instantiating (21) with all_19_0_7 yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (22) big_f(ex_18_1_6, all_0_0_0, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7) & big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_1_6, all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5) & ((big_f(all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7, ex_18_1_6, all_19_0_7) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7, ex_18_1_6, all_19_0_7))) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Applying alpha-rule on (22) yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (23) big_f(ex_18_1_6, all_0_0_0, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) % 4.82/1.91 | (24) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7) % 4.82/1.91 | (25) big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_1_6, all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5) % 4.82/1.91 | (26) (big_f(all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7, ex_18_1_6, all_19_0_7) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5)) | (big_f(all_0_1_1, ex_18_0_5, ex_18_1_6, ex_18_0_5) & ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_19_0_7, ex_18_1_6, all_19_0_7)) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | From (19)(20) and (25) follows: % 4.82/1.91 | (27) big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | From (2) and (18) follows: % 4.82/1.91 | (28) ~ big_f(all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4, all_0_1_1, all_3_0_4) % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 | Using (27) and (28) yields: % 4.82/1.91 | (15) $false % 4.82/1.91 | % 4.82/1.91 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 4.82/1.91 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 4.82/1.91 % 4.82/1.91 1310ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------