%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Princess---230619 % Problem : TIM014_1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % Computer : n008.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 : Tue May 5 07:17:17 PM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 16.61s 2.96s % Output : Proof 21.05s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : TIM014_1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0. % 0.11/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s % 0.16/0.34 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu % 0.16/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.16/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.16/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.16/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.16/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.16/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.16/0.34 % DateTime : Mon May 4 18:12:43 EDT 2026 % 0.16/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.65/0.63 ________ _____ % 0.65/0.63 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________ % 0.65/0.63 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/ % 0.65/0.63 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ ) % 0.65/0.63 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/ % 0.65/0.63 % 0.65/0.63 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic % 0.65/0.63 (2023-06-19) % 0.65/0.63 % 0.65/0.63 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023 % 0.65/0.63 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen, % 0.65/0.63 Amanda Stjerna. % 0.65/0.63 Free software under BSD-3-Clause. % 0.65/0.63 % 0.65/0.63 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml % 0.65/0.63 % 0.65/0.63 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ... % 0.65/0.64 Running up to 7 provers in parallel. % 0.65/0.66 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288 % 0.65/0.66 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365 % 4.47/1.39 Prover 1: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.39 Prover 4: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.39 Prover 6: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.39 Prover 0: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.39 Prover 2: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.40 Prover 3: Preprocessing ... % 4.47/1.40 Prover 5: Preprocessing ... % 10.54/2.12 Prover 2: Proving ... % 10.54/2.12 Prover 5: Proving ... % 10.54/2.19 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 11.16/2.20 Prover 6: Proving ... % 11.16/2.21 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 11.16/2.21 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ... % 11.16/2.23 Prover 0: Proving ... % 11.16/2.26 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 11.16/2.30 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ... % 11.95/2.31 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ... % 16.61/2.96 Prover 3: proved (2307ms) % 16.61/2.96 % 16.61/2.96 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 16.61/2.96 % 16.61/2.96 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470 % 16.61/2.96 Prover 2: stopped % 16.61/2.97 Prover 0: stopped % 16.61/2.97 Prover 5: stopped % 16.61/2.97 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089 % 16.61/2.98 Prover 6: stopped % 16.61/2.98 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125 % 16.61/2.98 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443 % 16.61/2.99 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984 % 17.48/3.11 Prover 13: Preprocessing ... % 18.26/3.13 Prover 7: Preprocessing ... % 18.26/3.15 Prover 10: Preprocessing ... % 18.26/3.16 Prover 11: Preprocessing ... % 18.26/3.17 Prover 8: Preprocessing ... % 18.93/3.26 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 18.93/3.27 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 18.93/3.28 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ... % 18.93/3.28 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ... % 19.69/3.36 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 19.69/3.38 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ... % 20.46/3.42 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 20.46/3.42 Prover 1: Found proof (size 13) % 20.46/3.42 Prover 1: proved (2775ms) % 20.46/3.42 Prover 13: stopped % 20.46/3.42 Prover 7: stopped % 20.46/3.42 Prover 10: stopped % 20.46/3.42 Prover 4: stopped % 20.46/3.43 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ... % 20.46/3.44 Prover 8: stopped % 20.46/3.46 Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers % 20.46/3.48 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ... % 20.46/3.49 Prover 11: stopped % 20.46/3.49 % 20.46/3.49 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 20.46/3.49 % 20.46/3.49 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark % 21.05/3.50 Assumptions after simplification: % 21.05/3.50 --------------------------------- % 21.05/3.50 % 21.05/3.50 (hint_leap_2024_feb) % 21.05/3.51 is_days_in_month(2, 2024, 29) = 0 % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 (lemma_boundary_leap_mar0) % 21.05/3.51 ? [v0: date] : (calc_date(0, 3, 2024, v0) = 0 & ymd(2024, 2, 29) = v0 & % 21.05/3.51 date(v0)) % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 (rule_base) % 21.05/3.51 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: date] : ! % 21.05/3.51 [v5: int] : (v5 = 0 | ~ ($lesseq(v0, v3)) | ~ ($lesseq(1, v0)) | ~ % 21.05/3.51 (is_days_in_month(v1, v2, v3) = 0) | ~ (calc_date(v0, v1, v2, v4) = v5) | % 21.05/3.51 ~ (ymd(v2, v1, v0) = v4)) % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 (test_leap_ok) % 21.05/3.51 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: date] : ( ~ (ymd(v0, 2, 29) = v1) | ? [v2: any] : ? % 21.05/3.51 [v3: any] : (calc_date(29, 2, 2024, v1) = v2 & valid_day(29) = v3 & ( ~ (v3 % 21.05/3.51 = 0) | ~ (v2 = 0)))) % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 (trap_ax) % 21.05/3.51 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ ($lesseq(v0, 31)) | ~ ($lesseq(1, % 21.05/3.51 v0)) | ~ (valid_day(v0) = v1)) & ! [v0: int] : ( ~ (valid_day(v0) = 0) % 21.05/3.51 | ($lesseq(v0, 31) & $lesseq(1, v0))) % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 Further assumptions not needed in the proof: % 21.05/3.51 -------------------------------------------- % 21.05/3.51 anchor_1600_jan1, anchor_1776_jan1, anchor_1969_jan1, anchor_1985_jan1, % 21.05/3.51 anchor_2024_apr1, anchor_2024_feb1, anchor_2024_jan1, anchor_2024_mar1, % 21.05/3.51 anchor_2024_may1, anchor_2025_feb1, anchor_2025_jan1, anchor_2025_mar1, % 21.05/3.51 anchor_2025_nov1, back_decade_peel, back_year_peel_leap, back_year_peel_nonleap, % 21.05/3.51 cache_4yr_2025_to_2028, calc_nth_offset_def_mod7, calc_weekday_zeller, d_24, % 21.05/3.51 d_25, d_26, d_27, d_28, dt_logic, hint_century_back_bridge, % 21.05/3.51 hint_century_multi_bridge, hint_century_threshold_100k, % 21.05/3.51 hint_century_to_decade_bridge, hint_leap_1776_feb, last_weekday_shortcut, % 21.05/3.51 lemma_boundary_dec32, lemma_boundary_jan0_2024, lemma_boundary_jan0_2025, % 21.05/3.51 lemma_boundary_norm_mar0, m1, m10, m11, m12, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6, m7, m8, m9, % 21.05/3.51 map_0, map_1, map_2, map_3, map_4, map_5, map_6, map_n_0, map_n_1, map_n_2, % 21.05/3.51 map_n_3, map_n_4, map_n_5, map_n_6, map_name_to_int_functional, % 21.05/3.51 nth_weekday_logic, rule_back_10year_long, rule_back_10year_short, % 21.05/3.51 rule_back_400yr_cycle, rule_back_century, rule_back_jan, rule_back_std, % 21.05/3.51 rule_fwd_10year_long, rule_fwd_400yr_cycle, rule_fwd_4year, rule_fwd_century, % 21.05/3.51 rule_fwd_dec, rule_fwd_safe_4yr_gen, rule_fwd_std, rule_fwd_year, % 21.05/3.51 rule_weekday_month_jump, time_logic, weekday_400yr_period, weekday_functional, % 21.05/3.51 zeller_adj_janfeb, zeller_adj_norm % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 Those formulas are unsatisfiable: % 21.05/3.51 --------------------------------- % 21.05/3.51 % 21.05/3.51 Begin of proof % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | ALPHA: (trap_ax) implies: % 21.05/3.52 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ ($lesseq(v0, 31)) | ~ % 21.05/3.52 | ($lesseq(1, v0)) | ~ (valid_day(v0) = v1)) % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | DELTA: instantiating (lemma_boundary_leap_mar0) with fresh symbol all_68_0 % 21.05/3.52 | gives: % 21.05/3.52 | (2) calc_date(0, 3, 2024, all_68_0) = 0 & ymd(2024, 2, 29) = all_68_0 & % 21.05/3.52 | date(all_68_0) % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | ALPHA: (2) implies: % 21.05/3.52 | (3) ymd(2024, 2, 29) = all_68_0 % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (test_leap_ok) with 2024, all_68_0, simplifying % 21.05/3.52 | with (3) gives: % 21.05/3.52 | (4) ? [v0: any] : ? [v1: any] : (calc_date(29, 2, 2024, all_68_0) = v0 & % 21.05/3.52 | valid_day(29) = v1 & ( ~ (v1 = 0) | ~ (v0 = 0))) % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | DELTA: instantiating (4) with fresh symbols all_198_0, all_198_1 gives: % 21.05/3.52 | (5) calc_date(29, 2, 2024, all_68_0) = all_198_1 & valid_day(29) = % 21.05/3.52 | all_198_0 & ( ~ (all_198_0 = 0) | ~ (all_198_1 = 0)) % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | ALPHA: (5) implies: % 21.05/3.52 | (6) valid_day(29) = all_198_0 % 21.05/3.52 | (7) calc_date(29, 2, 2024, all_68_0) = all_198_1 % 21.05/3.52 | (8) ~ (all_198_0 = 0) | ~ (all_198_1 = 0) % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 29, all_198_0, simplifying with (6) gives: % 21.05/3.52 | (9) all_198_0 = 0 % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (rule_base) with 29, 2, 2024, 29, all_68_0, % 21.05/3.52 | all_198_1, simplifying with (3), (7), (hint_leap_2024_feb) gives: % 21.05/3.52 | (10) all_198_1 = 0 % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | BETA: splitting (8) gives: % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 | Case 1: % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | (11) ~ (all_198_0 = 0) % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | REDUCE: (9), (11) imply: % 21.05/3.52 | | (12) $false % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | CLOSE: (12) is inconsistent. % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | Case 2: % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | (13) ~ (all_198_1 = 0) % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | REDUCE: (10), (13) imply: % 21.05/3.52 | | (14) $false % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | | CLOSE: (14) is inconsistent. % 21.05/3.52 | | % 21.05/3.52 | End of split % 21.05/3.52 | % 21.05/3.52 End of proof % 21.05/3.53 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark % 21.05/3.53 % 21.05/3.53 2897ms %------------------------------------------------------------------------------