%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : SYN920+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n025.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 : 300s % DateTime : Fri Sep 1 03:29:13 EDT 2023 % Result : Theorem 3.53s 1.23s % Output : Proof 4.45s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SYN920+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0. % 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.17/0.34 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu % 0.17/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.17/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.17/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.17/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.17/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.17/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.17/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Aug 26 19:25:08 EDT 2023 % 0.17/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.66 ________ _____ % 0.20/0.66 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.20/0.66 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.20/0.66 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.20/0.66 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.20/0.66 % 0.20/0.66 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.20/0.66 (2023-06-19) % 0.20/0.66 % 0.20/0.66 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.20/0.66 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.20/0.66 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.20/0.66 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.20/0.66 % 0.20/0.66 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.20/0.66 % 0.20/0.66 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.20/0.68 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.20/0.69 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.20/0.69 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 1.80/1.01 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 1.80/1.01 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 2.33/1.06 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 2.33/1.06 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.33/1.06 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 2.33/1.06 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.33/1.06 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 2.57/1.12 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.57/1.12 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.10/1.16 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.10/1.16 Prover 6: Proving ... % 3.10/1.17 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.10/1.19 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.53/1.21 Prover 0: Proving ... % 3.53/1.23 Prover 2: proved (541ms) % 3.53/1.23 % 3.53/1.23 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 3.53/1.23 % 3.53/1.23 Prover 5: stopped % 3.53/1.23 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 3.53/1.23 Prover 0: stopped % 3.53/1.23 Prover 6: stopped % 3.53/1.24 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 3.53/1.24 Prover 3: stopped % 3.53/1.25 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 3.53/1.25 Prover 1: gave up % 3.53/1.25 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 3.53/1.25 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 3.53/1.25 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.25 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.25 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683 % 3.85/1.26 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.27 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.27 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.27 Prover 16: Preprocessing ... % 3.85/1.28 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.85/1.29 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.85/1.29 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.85/1.29 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 3.85/1.30 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.85/1.30 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 3.85/1.32 Prover 10: Found proof (size 13) % 3.85/1.32 Prover 10: proved (86ms) % 3.85/1.32 Prover 13: stopped % 3.85/1.32 Prover 16: stopped % 3.85/1.32 Prover 7: stopped % 3.85/1.32 Prover 8: stopped % 3.85/1.32 Prover 4: stopped % 4.45/1.37 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 4.45/1.37 Prover 11: stopped % 4.45/1.37 % 4.45/1.37 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 4.45/1.37 % 4.45/1.37 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 4.45/1.38 Assumptions after simplification: % 4.45/1.38 --------------------------------- % 4.45/1.38 % 4.45/1.38 (prove_this) % 4.45/1.38 ? [v0: $i] : ($i(v0) & ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ h(v1) | ~ f(v1) | % 4.45/1.38 g(v1)) & ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ g(v1) | ~ f(v1) | h(v1)) & ( ! % 4.45/1.38 [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ f(v1) | h(v1)) | ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ % 4.45/1.38 f(v1) | g(v1))) & ((g(v0) & f(v0) & ~ h(v0)) | (f(v0) & ~ g(v0)))) % 4.45/1.39 % 4.45/1.39 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 4.45/1.39 --------------------------------- % 4.45/1.39 % 4.45/1.39 Begin of proof % 4.45/1.39 | % 4.45/1.39 | DELTA: instantiating (prove_this) with fresh symbol all_2_0 gives: % 4.45/1.39 | (1) $i(all_2_0) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ h(v0) | ~ f(v0) | g(v0)) & % 4.45/1.39 | ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ g(v0) | ~ f(v0) | h(v0)) & ( ! [v0: $i] % 4.45/1.39 | : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ f(v0) | h(v0)) | ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ % 4.45/1.39 | f(v0) | g(v0))) & ((g(all_2_0) & f(all_2_0) & ~ h(all_2_0)) | % 4.45/1.39 | (f(all_2_0) & ~ g(all_2_0))) % 4.45/1.39 | % 4.45/1.39 | ALPHA: (1) implies: % 4.45/1.39 | (2) $i(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.39 | (3) (g(all_2_0) & f(all_2_0) & ~ h(all_2_0)) | (f(all_2_0) & ~ % 4.45/1.39 | g(all_2_0)) % 4.45/1.39 | (4) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ f(v0) | h(v0)) | ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) % 4.45/1.39 | | ~ f(v0) | g(v0)) % 4.45/1.40 | (5) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ g(v0) | ~ f(v0) | h(v0)) % 4.45/1.40 | (6) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ h(v0) | ~ f(v0) | g(v0)) % 4.45/1.40 | % 4.45/1.40 | BETA: splitting (3) gives: % 4.45/1.40 | % 4.45/1.40 | Case 1: % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | (7) g(all_2_0) & f(all_2_0) & ~ h(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | ALPHA: (7) implies: % 4.45/1.40 | | (8) ~ h(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | (9) f(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | (10) g(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with all_2_0, simplifying with (2), (8), (9), % 4.45/1.40 | | (10) gives: % 4.45/1.40 | | (11) $false % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | CLOSE: (11) is inconsistent. % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | Case 2: % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | (12) f(all_2_0) & ~ g(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | ALPHA: (12) implies: % 4.45/1.40 | | (13) ~ g(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | (14) f(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | BETA: splitting (4) gives: % 4.45/1.40 | | % 4.45/1.40 | | Case 1: % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | | (15) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ f(v0) | h(v0)) % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (15) with all_2_0, simplifying with (2), (14) % 4.45/1.40 | | | gives: % 4.45/1.40 | | | (16) h(all_2_0) % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with all_2_0, simplifying with (2), (13), % 4.45/1.40 | | | (14), (16) gives: % 4.45/1.40 | | | (17) $false % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | | CLOSE: (17) is inconsistent. % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | Case 2: % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.40 | | | (18) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ f(v0) | g(v0)) % 4.45/1.40 | | | % 4.45/1.41 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (18) with all_2_0, simplifying with (2), (13), % 4.45/1.41 | | | (14) gives: % 4.45/1.41 | | | (19) $false % 4.45/1.41 | | | % 4.45/1.41 | | | CLOSE: (19) is inconsistent. % 4.45/1.41 | | | % 4.45/1.41 | | End of split % 4.45/1.41 | | % 4.45/1.41 | End of split % 4.45/1.41 | % 4.45/1.41 End of proof % 4.45/1.41 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 4.45/1.41 % 4.45/1.41 742ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------