%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : ePrincess---1.0 % Problem : SYN981+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 05:06:15 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 1.81s 1.15s % Output : Proof 2.45s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SYN981+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.03/0.12 % 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 % 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 16:39:19 EDT 2022 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.56/0.59 ____ _ % 0.56/0.59 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________ % 0.56/0.59 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/ % 0.56/0.59 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ ) % 0.56/0.59 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/ % 0.56/0.59 % 0.56/0.59 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic % 0.56/0.59 (ePrincess v.1.0) % 0.56/0.59 % 0.56/0.59 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015 % 0.56/0.59 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015 % 0.56/0.59 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner) % 0.56/0.59 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). % 0.56/0.59 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se % 0.56/0.59 % 0.56/0.59 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/ % 0.56/0.59 % 0.56/0.59 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.69/0.64 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.25/0.89 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 1.36/0.93 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 1.36/0.94 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.55/1.04 Prover 0: gave up % 1.55/1.04 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all % 1.55/1.06 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 1.81/1.11 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 1.81/1.15 Prover 1: proved (110ms) % 1.81/1.15 % 1.81/1.15 No countermodel exists, formula is valid % 1.81/1.15 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 1.81/1.15 % 1.81/1.15 Generating proof ... found it (size 16) % 2.32/1.29 % 2.32/1.29 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 2.32/1.29 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification: % 2.32/1.29 | (0) ? [v0] : ? [v1] : ? [v2] : (r(v0) = v2 & q(v0) = v1 & ! [v3] : ! [v4] : ! [v5] : (v4 = v3 | ~ (r(v5) = v4) | ~ (r(v5) = v3)) & ! [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) | ? [v5] : ( ~ (v5 = 0) & p(v3) = v5)) & ! [v3] : ! [v4] : (v4 = 0 | ~ (p(v3) = v4)) & ! [v3] : ~ (r(v3) = 0) & ( ~ (v1 = 0) | v2 = 0)) % 2.45/1.32 | Instantiating (0) with all_0_0_0, all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 yields: % 2.45/1.32 | (1) r(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 & q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (r(v2) = v1) | ~ (r(v2) = v0)) & ! [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) | ? [v2] : ( ~ (v2 = 0) & p(v0) = v2)) & ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (p(v0) = v1)) & ! [v0] : ~ (r(v0) = 0) & ( ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) | all_0_0_0 = 0) % 2.45/1.32 | % 2.45/1.32 | Applying alpha-rule on (1) yields: % 2.45/1.32 | (2) r(all_0_2_2) = all_0_0_0 % 2.45/1.32 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (q(v2) = v1) | ~ (q(v2) = v0)) % 2.45/1.32 | (4) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (r(v2) = v1) | ~ (r(v2) = v0)) % 2.45/1.32 | (5) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (p(v0) = v1)) % 2.45/1.32 | (6) q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1 % 2.45/1.32 | (7) ! [v0] : ~ (r(v0) = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | (8) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (q(v0) = v1) | ? [v2] : ( ~ (v2 = 0) & p(v0) = v2)) % 2.45/1.33 | (9) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ! [v2] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (p(v2) = v1) | ~ (p(v2) = v0)) % 2.45/1.33 | (10) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) | all_0_0_0 = 0 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Instantiating formula (7) with all_0_2_2 yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (11) ~ (r(all_0_2_2) = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Using (2) and (11) yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (12) ~ (all_0_0_0 = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (10), into two cases. % 2.45/1.33 |-Branch one: % 2.45/1.33 | (13) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Instantiating formula (8) with all_0_1_1, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms q(all_0_2_2) = all_0_1_1, yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (14) all_0_1_1 = 0 | ? [v0] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = v0) % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (14), into two cases. % 2.45/1.33 |-Branch one: % 2.45/1.33 | (15) all_0_1_1 = 0 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Equations (15) can reduce 13 to: % 2.45/1.33 | (16) $false % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.45/1.33 |-Branch two: % 2.45/1.33 | (13) ~ (all_0_1_1 = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | (18) ? [v0] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = v0) % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Instantiating (18) with all_22_0_3 yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (19) ~ (all_22_0_3 = 0) & p(all_0_2_2) = all_22_0_3 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Applying alpha-rule on (19) yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (20) ~ (all_22_0_3 = 0) % 2.45/1.33 | (21) p(all_0_2_2) = all_22_0_3 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Instantiating formula (5) with all_22_0_3, all_0_2_2 and discharging atoms p(all_0_2_2) = all_22_0_3, yields: % 2.45/1.33 | (22) all_22_0_3 = 0 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Equations (22) can reduce 20 to: % 2.45/1.33 | (16) $false % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.45/1.33 |-Branch two: % 2.45/1.33 | (15) all_0_1_1 = 0 % 2.45/1.33 | (25) all_0_0_0 = 0 % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 | Equations (25) can reduce 12 to: % 2.45/1.33 | (16) $false % 2.45/1.33 | % 2.45/1.33 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable % 2.45/1.33 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 2.45/1.33 % 2.45/1.33 731ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------