TSTP Solution File: DAT080_1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : DAT080_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n021.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 : Wed Aug 30 22:19:07 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 6.71s 1.63s
% Output : Proof 7.70s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : DAT080_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.17/0.34 % Computer : n021.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 : Thu Aug 24 13:55:40 EDT 2023
% 0.17/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.57 ________ _____
% 0.20/0.57 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.57 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.20/0.57 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.20/0.57 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.57
% 0.20/0.57 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.57 (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.57
% 0.20/0.57 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.57 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.57 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.57 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.57
% 0.20/0.57 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.57
% 0.20/0.57 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.58 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.59 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.41/1.05 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.41/1.05 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.81/1.09 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.81/1.09 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.81/1.09 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.81/1.09 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.81/1.09 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 4.82/1.40 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.82/1.41 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.32/1.42 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.32/1.42 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 5.32/1.45 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 5.32/1.45 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 5.74/1.49 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 6.71/1.62 Prover 6: proved (1030ms)
% 6.71/1.62
% 6.71/1.63 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.71/1.63
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 3: proved (1031ms)
% 6.71/1.63
% 6.71/1.63 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.71/1.63
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 5: stopped
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 2: stopped
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 0: stopped
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 6.71/1.63 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 6.86/1.64 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 6.86/1.64 Prover 1: Found proof (size 14)
% 6.86/1.64 Prover 1: proved (1055ms)
% 6.86/1.65 Prover 4: stopped
% 6.86/1.68 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.86/1.69 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.86/1.69 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.86/1.69 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 6.86/1.69 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 6.86/1.70 Prover 10: stopped
% 6.86/1.70 Prover 7: stopped
% 6.86/1.71 Prover 11: stopped
% 7.40/1.72 Prover 13: stopped
% 7.40/1.75 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.40/1.76 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.40/1.76 Prover 8: stopped
% 7.40/1.76
% 7.40/1.76 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 7.40/1.76
% 7.40/1.77 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 7.40/1.77 Assumptions after simplification:
% 7.40/1.77 ---------------------------------
% 7.40/1.77
% 7.40/1.77 (a)
% 7.70/1.79 list(nil) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (count(v0, nil) = v1))
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 (a_3)
% 7.70/1.79 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: list] : ! [v3: list] : ! [v4: int] :
% 7.70/1.79 (v1 = v0 | ~ (count(v0, v3) = v4) | ~ (cons(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ list(v2) |
% 7.70/1.79 count(v0, v2) = v4)
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 (a_8)
% 7.70/1.79 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: list] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 | ~ (in(v0, v1) = v2) |
% 7.70/1.79 ~ list(v1) | ? [v3: int] : ($lesseq(v3, 0)count(v0, v1) = v3)) & ! [v0:
% 7.70/1.79 int] : ! [v1: list] : ( ~ (in(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ list(v1) | ? [v2: int] :
% 7.70/1.79 ($lesseq(1, v2) & count(v0, v1) = v2))
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 (c)
% 7.70/1.79 list(nil) & ? [v0: list] : ? [v1: list] : ? [v2: list] : (in(4, v2) = 0 &
% 7.70/1.79 cons(3, nil) = v0 & cons(2, v0) = v1 & cons(1, v1) = v2 & list(v2) &
% 7.70/1.79 list(v1) & list(v0))
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 7.70/1.79 --------------------------------------------
% 7.70/1.79 a_4, inRange, in_conv, l, l1, l2, l3, l4, l_1, l_6, l_7
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 7.70/1.79 ---------------------------------
% 7.70/1.79
% 7.70/1.79 Begin of proof
% 7.70/1.80 |
% 7.70/1.80 | ALPHA: (a) implies:
% 7.70/1.80 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (count(v0, nil) = v1))
% 7.70/1.80 |
% 7.70/1.80 | ALPHA: (a_8) implies:
% 7.70/1.80 | (2) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: list] : ( ~ (in(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ list(v1) | ?
% 7.70/1.80 | [v2: int] : ($lesseq(1, v2) & count(v0, v1) = v2))
% 7.70/1.80 |
% 7.70/1.80 | ALPHA: (c) implies:
% 7.70/1.80 | (3) list(nil)
% 7.70/1.80 | (4) ? [v0: list] : ? [v1: list] : ? [v2: list] : (in(4, v2) = 0 &
% 7.70/1.80 | cons(3, nil) = v0 & cons(2, v0) = v1 & cons(1, v1) = v2 & list(v2) &
% 7.70/1.80 | list(v1) & list(v0))
% 7.70/1.80 |
% 7.70/1.80 | DELTA: instantiating (4) with fresh symbols all_19_0, all_19_1, all_19_2
% 7.70/1.80 | gives:
% 7.70/1.80 | (5) in(4, all_19_0) = 0 & cons(3, nil) = all_19_2 & cons(2, all_19_2) =
% 7.70/1.80 | all_19_1 & cons(1, all_19_1) = all_19_0 & list(all_19_0) &
% 7.70/1.80 | list(all_19_1) & list(all_19_2)
% 7.70/1.80 |
% 7.70/1.80 | ALPHA: (5) implies:
% 7.70/1.80 | (6) list(all_19_2)
% 7.70/1.81 | (7) list(all_19_1)
% 7.70/1.81 | (8) list(all_19_0)
% 7.70/1.81 | (9) cons(1, all_19_1) = all_19_0
% 7.70/1.81 | (10) cons(2, all_19_2) = all_19_1
% 7.70/1.81 | (11) cons(3, nil) = all_19_2
% 7.70/1.81 | (12) in(4, all_19_0) = 0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with 4, all_19_0, simplifying with (8), (12)
% 7.70/1.81 | gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (13) ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(1, v0) & count(4, all_19_0) = v0)
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | DELTA: instantiating (13) with fresh symbol all_31_0 gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (14) $lesseq(1, all_31_0) & count(4, all_19_0) = all_31_0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | ALPHA: (14) implies:
% 7.70/1.81 | (15) $lesseq(1, all_31_0)
% 7.70/1.81 | (16) count(4, all_19_0) = all_31_0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (a_3) with 4, 1, all_19_1, all_19_0, all_31_0,
% 7.70/1.81 | simplifying with (7), (9), (16) gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (17) count(4, all_19_1) = all_31_0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (a_3) with 4, 2, all_19_2, all_19_1, all_31_0,
% 7.70/1.81 | simplifying with (6), (10), (17) gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (18) count(4, all_19_2) = all_31_0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (a_3) with 4, 3, nil, all_19_2, all_31_0,
% 7.70/1.81 | simplifying with (3), (11), (18) gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (19) count(4, nil) = all_31_0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 4, all_31_0, simplifying with (19) gives:
% 7.70/1.81 | (20) all_31_0 = 0
% 7.70/1.81 |
% 7.70/1.81 | REDUCE: (15), (20) imply:
% 7.70/1.81 | (21) $false
% 7.70/1.82 |
% 7.70/1.82 | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent.
% 7.70/1.82 |
% 7.70/1.82 End of proof
% 7.70/1.82 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 7.70/1.82
% 7.70/1.82 1246ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------