%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN922+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % Computer : n017.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 1.86s 1.11s % Output : Proof 2.35s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SYN922+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.03/0.13 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s % 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jul 12 01:30:49 EDT 2022 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.54/0.58 ____ _ % 0.54/0.58 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.54/0.58 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.54/0.58 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.54/0.58 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.54/0.58 % 0.54/0.58 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.54/0.58 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.54/0.58 % 0.54/0.58 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.54/0.58 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.54/0.58 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.54/0.58 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.54/0.58 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.54/0.58 % 0.54/0.58 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.54/0.58 % 0.54/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.76/0.63 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.24/0.87 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.24/0.91 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.24/0.93 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.46/1.01 Prover 0: gave up % 1.46/1.01 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.46/1.03 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.70/1.07 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.86/1.11 Prover 1: proved (96ms) % 1.86/1.11 % 1.86/1.11 No countermodel exists, formula is valid % 1.86/1.11 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 1.86/1.11 % 1.86/1.11 Generating proof ... found it (size 20) % 2.31/1.23 % 2.31/1.23 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 2.31/1.23 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 2.31/1.23 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : ( ! [v3] : ! [v4] : ! [v5] : (v4 = v3 | ~ (q(v5) = v4) | ~ (q(v5) = v3)) & ! [v3] : ! [v4] : ! [v5] : (v4 = v3 | ~ (p(v5) = v4) | ~ (p(v5) = v3)) & ! [v3] : ! [v4] : (v4 = 0 | ~ (q(v3) = v4)) & ! [v3] : ! [v4] : (v4 = 0 | ~ (p(v3) = v4)) & (( ~ (v1 = 0) & q(v0) = v1) | ( ~ (v1 = 0) & p(v0) = v1) | (q(v0) = v2 & p(v0) = v1 & ( ~ (v2 = 0) | ~ (v1 = 0))))) % 2.35/1.27 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 yields: % 2.35/1.27 | (1) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (q(v2) = v1) | ~ (q(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (p(v2) = v1) | ~ (p(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (q(v0) = v1)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (p(v0) = v1)) & (( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) | ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) | (q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 & ( ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) | ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0)))) % 2.35/1.27 | % 2.35/1.27 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 2.35/1.27 | (2) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (q(v0) = v1)) % 2.35/1.27 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (q(v2) = v1) | ~ (q(v2) = v0)) % 2.35/1.27 | (4) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (p(v2) = v1) | ~ (p(v2) = v0)) % 2.35/1.27 | (5) ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) | ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) | (q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 & ( ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) | ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0))) % 2.35/1.27 | (6) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (p(v0) = v1)) % 2.35/1.27 | % 2.35/1.27 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (5), into two cases. % 2.35/1.27 |-Branch one: % 2.35/1.27 | (7) ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) | ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1) % 2.35/1.27 | % 2.35/1.27 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (7), into two cases. % 2.35/1.27 |-Branch one: % 2.35/1.27 | (8) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.35/1.27 | % 2.35/1.27 | Applying alpha-rule on (8) yields: % 2.35/1.27 | (9) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.35/1.27 | (10) q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Instantiating formula (2) with all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1, yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (11) all_0_1_1 = 0 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Equations (11) can reduce 9 to: % 2.35/1.28 | (12) $false % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.35/1.28 |-Branch two: % 2.35/1.28 | (13) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Applying alpha-rule on (13) yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (9) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.35/1.28 | (15) p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Instantiating formula (6) with all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1, yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (11) all_0_1_1 = 0 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Equations (11) can reduce 9 to: % 2.35/1.28 | (12) $false % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.35/1.28 |-Branch two: % 2.35/1.28 | (18) q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 & p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 & ( ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) | ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0)) % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Applying alpha-rule on (18) yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (19) q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 % 2.35/1.28 | (15) p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.35/1.28 | (21) ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) | ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Instantiating formula (2) with all_0_0_0, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0, yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (22) all_0_0_0 = 0 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Instantiating formula (6) with all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms p(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1, yields: % 2.35/1.28 | (11) all_0_1_1 = 0 % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (21), into two cases. % 2.35/1.28 |-Branch one: % 2.35/1.28 | (24) ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Equations (22) can reduce 24 to: % 2.35/1.28 | (12) $false % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.35/1.28 |-Branch two: % 2.35/1.28 | (22) all_0_0_0 = 0 % 2.35/1.28 | (9) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 | Equations (11) can reduce 9 to: % 2.35/1.28 | (12) $false % 2.35/1.28 | % 2.35/1.28 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.35/1.28 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 2.35/1.28 % 2.35/1.28 687ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------