%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN921+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n003.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 05:05:52 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 2.40s 1.34s % Output : Proof 2.87s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.02/0.09 % Problem : SYN921+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.02/0.10 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.09/0.29 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu % 0.09/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.09/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.09/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.09/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.09/0.29 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.09/0.29 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.09/0.29 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 23:16:00 EDT 2022 % 0.09/0.30 % CPUTime : % 0.14/0.54 ____ _ % 0.14/0.54 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.14/0.54 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.14/0.54 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.14/0.54 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.14/0.54 % 0.14/0.54 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.14/0.54 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.14/0.54 % 0.14/0.54 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.14/0.54 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.14/0.54 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.14/0.54 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.14/0.54 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.14/0.54 % 0.14/0.54 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.14/0.54 % 0.14/0.54 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.59/0.61 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.13/0.87 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.18/0.92 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.27/0.94 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.44/1.05 Prover 0: gave up % 1.44/1.05 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.44/1.08 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.66/1.13 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.66/1.14 Prover 1: gave up % 1.66/1.14 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.66/1.15 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 2.00/1.19 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.00/1.19 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.09/1.23 Prover 2: gave up % 2.09/1.23 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 2.16/1.23 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 2.16/1.24 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.16/1.25 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.16/1.26 Prover 3: gave up % 2.16/1.26 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete % 2.16/1.27 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 2.40/1.31 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.40/1.31 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 2.40/1.34 Prover 4: proved (79ms) % 2.40/1.34 % 2.40/1.34 No countermodel exists, formula is valid % 2.40/1.34 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 2.40/1.34 % 2.40/1.34 Generating proof ... Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 2.56/1.43 found it (size 8) % 2.56/1.43 % 2.56/1.43 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 2.56/1.44 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 2.56/1.44 | (0) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (q(v2) = v1) | ~ (q(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (p(v2) = v1) | ~ (p(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ (q(v0) = v1) | ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & ~ (v1 = 0) & p(v2) = v3 & p(v0) = 0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ (p(v0) = v1) | ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ? [v4] : (v1 = 0 & ~ (v4 = 0) & ~ (v2 = 0) & q(v0) = v2 & p(v3) = v4)) & ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & ~ (v1 = 0) & q(v0) = v1 & p(v2) = v3 & p(v0) = 0) % 2.79/1.48 | Applying alpha-rule on (0) yields: % 2.79/1.48 | (1) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (q(v2) = v1) | ~ (q(v2) = v0)) % 2.79/1.48 | (2) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & ~ (v1 = 0) & q(v0) = v1 & p(v2) = v3 & p(v0) = 0) % 2.79/1.48 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ (p(v0) = v1) | ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ? [v4] : (v1 = 0 & ~ (v4 = 0) & ~ (v2 = 0) & q(v0) = v2 & p(v3) = v4)) % 2.79/1.48 | (4) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ (q(v0) = v1) | ? [v2] : ? [v3] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & ~ (v1 = 0) & p(v2) = v3 & p(v0) = 0)) % 2.79/1.49 | (5) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (p(v2) = v1) | ~ (p(v2) = v0)) % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.79/1.49 | Instantiating (2) with all_1_0_0, all_1_1_1, all_1_2_2, all_1_3_3 yields: % 2.79/1.49 | (6) ~ (all_1_0_0 = 0) & ~ (all_1_2_2 = 0) & q(all_1_3_3) = all_1_2_2 & p(all_1_1_1) = all_1_0_0 & p(all_1_3_3) = 0 % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.79/1.49 | Applying alpha-rule on (6) yields: % 2.79/1.49 | (7) p(all_1_3_3) = 0 % 2.79/1.49 | (8) p(all_1_1_1) = all_1_0_0 % 2.79/1.49 | (9) q(all_1_3_3) = all_1_2_2 % 2.79/1.49 | (10) ~ (all_1_0_0 = 0) % 2.79/1.49 | (11) ~ (all_1_2_2 = 0) % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.79/1.49 | Instantiating formula (3) with all_1_0_0, all_1_1_1 and discharging atoms p(all_1_1_1) = all_1_0_0, yields: % 2.79/1.49 | (12) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : (all_1_0_0 = 0 & ~ (v2 = 0) & ~ (v0 = 0) & q(all_1_1_1) = v0 & p(v1) = v2) % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.79/1.49 | Instantiating (12) with all_10_0_7, all_10_1_8, all_10_2_9 yields: % 2.79/1.49 | (13) all_1_0_0 = 0 & ~ (all_10_0_7 = 0) & ~ (all_10_2_9 = 0) & q(all_1_1_1) = all_10_2_9 & p(all_10_1_8) = all_10_0_7 % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.79/1.49 | Applying alpha-rule on (13) yields: % 2.79/1.49 | (14) q(all_1_1_1) = all_10_2_9 % 2.79/1.49 | (15) p(all_10_1_8) = all_10_0_7 % 2.79/1.49 | (16) ~ (all_10_0_7 = 0) % 2.79/1.49 | (17) all_1_0_0 = 0 % 2.79/1.49 | (18) ~ (all_10_2_9 = 0) % 2.79/1.49 | % 2.87/1.49 | Equations (17) can reduce 10 to: % 2.87/1.50 | (19) $false % 2.87/1.50 | % 2.87/1.50 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.87/1.50 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 2.87/1.50 % 2.87/1.50 941ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------