%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN413+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n024.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 05:02:13 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 5.34s 2.22s % Output : Proof 6.67s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.11 % Problem : SYN413+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.03/0.12 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n024.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 : Tue Jul 12 00:07:13 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.56/0.56 ____ _ % 0.56/0.56 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.56/0.56 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.56/0.56 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.56/0.56 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.56/0.56 % 0.56/0.56 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.56/0.57 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.56/0.57 % 0.56/0.57 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.56/0.57 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.56/0.57 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.56/0.57 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.56/0.57 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.56/0.57 % 0.56/0.57 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.56/0.57 % 0.56/0.57 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.62/0.61 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.10/0.82 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.25/0.87 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.34/0.89 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.51/1.01 Prover 0: gave up % 1.51/1.01 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.74/1.03 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.74/1.07 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.74/1.07 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.98/1.08 Prover 1: gave up % 1.98/1.08 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.98/1.09 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 1.98/1.14 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.98/1.14 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.98/1.16 Prover 2: gave up % 2.27/1.16 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.27/1.17 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.27/1.17 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.27/1.17 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.44/1.21 Prover 3: gave up % 2.44/1.21 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.44/1.21 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.55/1.25 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.55/1.25 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.65/1.54 Prover 4: gave up % 3.65/1.54 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.65/1.55 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.65/1.56 Prover 5: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.65/1.56 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.65/1.57 Prover 5: gave up % 3.65/1.57 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.65/1.57 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.65/1.59 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.65/1.59 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.65/1.60 Prover 6: gave up % 3.65/1.60 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.65/1.61 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.65/1.61 Prover 7: Proving ... % 5.34/2.22 Prover 7: proved (623ms) % 5.34/2.22 % 5.34/2.22 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 5.34/2.22 % 5.34/2.22 Generating proof ... found it (size 28) % 6.67/2.61 % 6.67/2.61 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 6.67/2.62 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 6.67/2.62 | (0) ? [v0] : ! [v1] : f(v1, v0) & ! [v0] : ? [v1] : ( ! [v2] : ( ~ f(v2, v1) | (f(v2, v0) & ~ f(v2, v2))) & ! [v2] : ( ~ f(v2, v0) | f(v2, v2) | f(v2, v1))) % 6.67/2.62 | Applying alpha-rule on (0) yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (1) ? [v0] : ! [v1] : f(v1, v0) % 6.67/2.62 | (2) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : ( ! [v2] : ( ~ f(v2, v1) | (f(v2, v0) & ~ f(v2, v2))) & ! [v2] : ( ~ f(v2, v0) | f(v2, v2) | f(v2, v1))) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating (1) with all_0_0_0 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (3) ! [v0] : f(v0, all_0_0_0) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Introducing new symbol ex_10_0_2 defined by: % 6.67/2.62 | (4) ex_10_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating formula (2) with ex_10_0_2 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (5) ? [v0] : ( ! [v1] : ( ~ f(v1, v0) | (f(v1, ex_10_0_2) & ~ f(v1, v1))) & ! [v1] : ( ~ f(v1, ex_10_0_2) | f(v1, v1) | f(v1, v0))) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating (5) with all_11_0_3 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (6) ! [v0] : ( ~ f(v0, all_11_0_3) | (f(v0, ex_10_0_2) & ~ f(v0, v0))) & ! [v0] : ( ~ f(v0, ex_10_0_2) | f(v0, v0) | f(v0, all_11_0_3)) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Applying alpha-rule on (6) yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (7) ! [v0] : ( ~ f(v0, all_11_0_3) | (f(v0, ex_10_0_2) & ~ f(v0, v0))) % 6.67/2.62 | (8) ! [v0] : ( ~ f(v0, ex_10_0_2) | f(v0, v0) | f(v0, all_11_0_3)) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Introducing new symbol ex_28_0_4 defined by: % 6.67/2.62 | (9) ex_28_0_4 = all_11_0_3 % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating formula (3) with ex_28_0_4 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (10) f(ex_28_0_4, all_0_0_0) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating formula (7) with ex_28_0_4 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (11) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, all_11_0_3) | (f(ex_28_0_4, ex_10_0_2) & ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4)) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Instantiating formula (8) with ex_28_0_4 yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (12) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_10_0_2) | f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) | f(ex_28_0_4, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (12), into two cases. % 6.67/2.62 |-Branch one: % 6.67/2.62 | (13) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_10_0_2) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | From (9) and (10) follows: % 6.67/2.62 | (14) f(all_11_0_3, all_0_0_0) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | From (9)(4) and (13) follows: % 6.67/2.62 | (15) ~ f(all_11_0_3, all_0_0_0) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Using (14) and (15) yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (16) $false % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.67/2.62 |-Branch two: % 6.67/2.62 | (17) f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) | f(ex_28_0_4, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (17), into two cases. % 6.67/2.62 |-Branch one: % 6.67/2.62 | (18) f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (11), into two cases. % 6.67/2.62 |-Branch one: % 6.67/2.62 | (19) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | From (9)(9) and (18) follows: % 6.67/2.62 | (20) f(all_11_0_3, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | From (9) and (19) follows: % 6.67/2.62 | (21) ~ f(all_11_0_3, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 | Using (20) and (21) yields: % 6.67/2.62 | (16) $false % 6.67/2.62 | % 6.67/2.62 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.67/2.62 |-Branch two: % 6.67/2.62 | (23) f(ex_28_0_4, ex_10_0_2) & ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 | Applying alpha-rule on (23) yields: % 6.67/2.63 | (24) f(ex_28_0_4, ex_10_0_2) % 6.67/2.63 | (25) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 | Using (18) and (25) yields: % 6.67/2.63 | (16) $false % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.67/2.63 |-Branch two: % 6.67/2.63 | (25) ~ f(ex_28_0_4, ex_28_0_4) % 6.67/2.63 | (28) f(ex_28_0_4, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 | From (9) and (28) follows: % 6.67/2.63 | (20) f(all_11_0_3, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 | From (9)(9) and (25) follows: % 6.67/2.63 | (21) ~ f(all_11_0_3, all_11_0_3) % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 | Using (20) and (21) yields: % 6.67/2.63 | (16) $false % 6.67/2.63 | % 6.67/2.63 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.67/2.63 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 6.67/2.63 % 6.67/2.63 2051ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------