%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN721+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n004.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 05:04:40 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 4.08s 1.80s % Output : Proof 6.46s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYN721+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0. % 0.07/0.13 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 20:48:37 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.60 ____ _ % 0.20/0.60 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.20/0.60 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.20/0.60 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.20/0.60 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.20/0.60 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.20/0.60 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.20/0.60 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.20/0.60 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.20/0.60 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.20/0.60 % 0.20/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.70/0.65 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.30/0.91 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.37/0.96 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.37/0.98 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.85/1.10 Prover 0: gave up % 1.85/1.10 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.85/1.12 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.08/1.17 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.08/1.19 Prover 1: gave up % 2.08/1.19 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.08/1.20 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.08/1.23 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.08/1.24 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.08/1.27 Prover 2: gave up % 2.08/1.27 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.08/1.27 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.46/1.28 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.46/1.28 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.46/1.31 Prover 3: gave up % 2.46/1.31 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.63/1.32 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.74/1.35 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.74/1.36 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.74/1.42 Prover 4: gave up % 2.74/1.42 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.74/1.43 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 3.05/1.45 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.05/1.46 Prover 5: gave up % 3.05/1.46 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.05/1.47 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 3.21/1.48 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.21/1.49 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.21/1.50 Prover 6: gave up % 3.21/1.50 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 3.21/1.51 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.21/1.51 Prover 7: Proving ... % 4.08/1.80 Prover 7: proved (296ms) % 4.08/1.80 % 4.08/1.80 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 4.08/1.80 % 4.08/1.80 Generating proof ... found it (size 20) % 6.46/2.67 % 6.46/2.67 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 6.46/2.67 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 6.46/2.67 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : (r(v1, v0) & ! [v2] : ! [v3] : ( ~ q(v2, v3) | ! [v4] : r(v4, v3)) & ! [v2] : ( ~ q(v2, v1) | ~ r(v0, v2)) & ! [v2] : (q(v2, v2) | ! [v3] : ~ r(v2, v3))) % 6.46/2.67 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1 yields: % 6.46/2.67 | (1) r(all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ q(v0, v1) | ! [v2] : r(v2, v1)) & ! [v0] : ( ~ q(v0, all_0_0_0) | ~ r(all_0_1_1, v0)) & ! [v0] : (q(v0, v0) | ! [v1] : ~ r(v0, v1)) % 6.46/2.67 | % 6.46/2.67 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 6.46/2.67 | (2) r(all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1) % 6.46/2.67 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ q(v0, v1) | ! [v2] : r(v2, v1)) % 6.46/2.67 | (4) ! [v0] : ( ~ q(v0, all_0_0_0) | ~ r(all_0_1_1, v0)) % 6.46/2.67 | (5) ! [v0] : (q(v0, v0) | ! [v1] : ~ r(v0, v1)) % 6.46/2.67 | % 6.46/2.67 | Introducing new symbol ex_9_0_2 defined by: % 6.46/2.67 | (6) ex_9_0_2 = all_0_0_0 % 6.46/2.67 | % 6.46/2.67 | Instantiating formula (5) with ex_9_0_2 yields: % 6.46/2.67 | (7) q(ex_9_0_2, ex_9_0_2) | ! [v0] : ~ r(ex_9_0_2, v0) % 6.46/2.67 | % 6.46/2.67 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (7), into two cases. % 6.46/2.67 |-Branch one: % 6.46/2.67 | (8) q(ex_9_0_2, ex_9_0_2) % 6.46/2.67 | % 6.46/2.68 | Instantiating formula (3) with ex_9_0_2, ex_9_0_2 and discharging atoms q(ex_9_0_2, ex_9_0_2), yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (9) ! [v0] : r(v0, ex_9_0_2) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Introducing new symbol ex_34_0_4 defined by: % 6.46/2.68 | (10) ex_34_0_4 = all_0_1_1 % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Instantiating formula (9) with ex_34_0_4 yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (11) r(ex_34_0_4, ex_9_0_2) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Instantiating formula (4) with all_0_0_0 yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (12) ~ q(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) | ~ r(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (12), into two cases. % 6.46/2.68 |-Branch one: % 6.46/2.68 | (13) ~ r(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | From (10)(6) and (11) follows: % 6.46/2.68 | (14) r(all_0_1_1, all_0_0_0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Using (14) and (13) yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (15) $false % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.46/2.68 |-Branch two: % 6.46/2.68 | (16) ~ q(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | From (6)(6) and (8) follows: % 6.46/2.68 | (17) q(all_0_0_0, all_0_0_0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Using (17) and (16) yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (15) $false % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.46/2.68 |-Branch two: % 6.46/2.68 | (19) ! [v0] : ~ r(ex_9_0_2, v0) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Instantiating formula (19) with all_0_1_1 yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (20) ~ r(ex_9_0_2, all_0_1_1) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | From (6) and (20) follows: % 6.46/2.68 | (21) ~ r(all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1) % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 | Using (2) and (21) yields: % 6.46/2.68 | (15) $false % 6.46/2.68 | % 6.46/2.68 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 6.46/2.68 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 6.46/2.68 % 6.46/2.68 2067ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------