TSTP Solution File: GEG024_1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : GEG024_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n013.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 22:40:40 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 6.85s 1.68s
% Output   : Proof 9.98s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : GEG024_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.12/0.33  % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 00:57:47 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.61  ________       _____
% 0.19/0.61  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.61  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.19/0.61  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.19/0.61  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.61  
% 0.19/0.61  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.61  (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.61  
% 0.19/0.61  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.61  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.61                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.61  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.61  
% 0.19/0.61  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.61  
% 0.19/0.61  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.19/0.62  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 0.19/0.63  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 1.99/1.04  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/1.04  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.83/1.09  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.83/1.09  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.83/1.09  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.83/1.10  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.83/1.10  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 3.71/1.22  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.71/1.23  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.71/1.24  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 3.71/1.26  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.11/1.27  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 4.11/1.28  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 4.11/1.29  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 6.85/1.68  Prover 0: proved (1054ms)
% 6.85/1.68  
% 6.85/1.68  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.85/1.68  
% 6.85/1.68  Prover 2: stopped
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 6: stopped
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 3: stopped
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 5: stopped
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 6.85/1.69  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 6.85/1.70  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 6.85/1.71  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.85/1.71  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.85/1.73  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 7.48/1.73  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 7.48/1.74  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 7.48/1.76  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.48/1.76  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.48/1.76  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.48/1.78  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.93/1.80  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.93/1.81  Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.93/1.82  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.09/2.10  Prover 4: Found proof (size 9)
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 4: proved (1476ms)
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 13: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 10: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 7: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 11: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 1: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  Prover 8: stopped
% 9.09/2.11  
% 9.09/2.11  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.09/2.11  
% 9.09/2.11  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 9.09/2.11  Assumptions after simplification:
% 9.09/2.11  ---------------------------------
% 9.09/2.11  
% 9.09/2.11    (exists_big_city_distance_1)
% 9.98/2.15    inh(munich) = 1330440 & inh(saarbruecken) = 175810 & inh(frankfurt) = 671927 &
% 9.98/2.15    inh(cologne) = 998105 & inh(berlin) = 3442675 & inh(hamburg) = 1774224 &
% 9.98/2.15    inh(kiel) = 238281 & d(munich, saarbruecken) = 360 & d(munich, frankfurt) =
% 9.98/2.15    300 & d(saarbruecken, frankfurt) = 160 & d(saarbruecken, cologne) = 190 &
% 9.98/2.15    d(cologne, frankfurt) = 150 & d(berlin, munich) = 510 & d(berlin, frankfurt) =
% 9.98/2.15    420 & d(berlin, cologne) = 480 & d(hamburg, frankfurt) = 390 & d(hamburg,
% 9.98/2.15      cologne) = 360 & d(hamburg, berlin) = 250 & d(hamburg, kiel) = 90 &
% 9.98/2.15    city(munich) & city(saarbruecken) & city(frankfurt) & city(cologne) &
% 9.98/2.15    city(berlin) & city(hamburg) & city(kiel) &  ! [v0: city] :  ! [v1: city] :  !
% 9.98/2.15    [v2: city] :  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v2) = v4) |  ~ (d(v0,
% 9.98/2.15          v1) = v3) |  ~ city(v2) |  ~ city(v1) |  ~ city(v0) |  ? [v5: int] :
% 9.98/2.15      ($lesseq(0, $sum($difference(v4, v5), v3)) & d(v0, v2) = v5)) &  ! [v0:
% 9.98/2.16      city] :  ! [v1: city] :  ! [v2: city] :  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~
% 9.98/2.16      (d(v1, v2) = v3) |  ~ (d(v0, v2) = v4) |  ~ city(v2) |  ~ city(v1) |  ~
% 9.98/2.16      city(v0) |  ? [v5: int] : ($lesseq(0, $sum($difference(v5, v4), v3)) & d(v0,
% 9.98/2.16          v1) = v5)) &  ! [v0: city] :  ! [v1: city] :  ! [v2: city] :  ! [v3:
% 9.98/2.16      int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ (d(v0, v2) = v4) |  ~ (d(v0, v1) = v3) |  ~
% 9.98/2.16      city(v2) |  ~ city(v1) |  ~ city(v0) |  ? [v5: int] : ($lesseq(0,
% 9.98/2.16          $sum($difference(v5, v4), v3)) & d(v1, v2) = v5)) &  ! [v0: city] :  !
% 9.98/2.16    [v1: city] :  ! [v2: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v0) = v2) |  ~ city(v1) |  ~ city(v0) |
% 9.98/2.16      d(v0, v1) = v2) &  ! [v0: city] :  ! [v1: city] :  ! [v2: int] : ( ~ (d(v0,
% 9.98/2.16          v1) = v2) |  ~ city(v1) |  ~ city(v0) | d(v1, v0) = v2) &  ! [v0: city]
% 9.98/2.16    :  ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 |  ~ (d(v0, v0) = v1) |  ~ city(v0)) &  ! [v0: city]
% 9.98/2.16    :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, 100)) |  ~ (d(kiel, v0) = v1) |  ~ city(v0)
% 9.98/2.16      |  ? [v2: int] : ($lesseq(v2, 999999) & inh(v0) = v2)) &  ! [v0: city] :  !
% 9.98/2.16    [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1000000, v1)) |  ~ (inh(v0) = v1) |  ~ city(v0) |  ?
% 9.98/2.16      [v2: int] : ($lesseq(101, v2) & d(kiel, v0) = v2))
% 9.98/2.16  
% 9.98/2.16    (function-axioms)
% 9.98/2.16     ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: city] :  ! [v3: city] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 9.98/2.16      (d(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (d(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] :  !
% 9.98/2.16    [v2: city] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (inh(v2) = v1) |  ~ (inh(v2) = v0))
% 9.98/2.16  
% 9.98/2.16  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 9.98/2.16  ---------------------------------
% 9.98/2.16  
% 9.98/2.16  Begin of proof
% 9.98/2.16  | 
% 9.98/2.16  | ALPHA: (exists_big_city_distance_1) implies:
% 9.98/2.16  |   (1)  city(kiel)
% 9.98/2.16  |   (2)  city(hamburg)
% 9.98/2.16  |   (3)  d(hamburg, kiel) = 90
% 9.98/2.16  |   (4)  inh(hamburg) = 1774224
% 9.98/2.16  |   (5)   ! [v0: city] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1000000, v1)) |  ~ (inh(v0)
% 9.98/2.16  |            = v1) |  ~ city(v0) |  ? [v2: int] : ($lesseq(101, v2) & d(kiel,
% 9.98/2.16  |              v0) = v2))
% 9.98/2.16  |   (6)   ! [v0: city] :  ! [v1: city] :  ! [v2: int] : ( ~ (d(v1, v0) = v2) | 
% 9.98/2.16  |          ~ city(v1) |  ~ city(v0) | d(v0, v1) = v2)
% 9.98/2.16  | 
% 9.98/2.16  | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (7)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: city] :  ! [v3: city] : (v1 = v0
% 9.98/2.17  |          |  ~ (d(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (d(v3, v2) = v0))
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with kiel, hamburg, 90, simplifying with (1),
% 9.98/2.17  |              (2), (3) gives:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (8)  d(kiel, hamburg) = 90
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with hamburg, 1774224, simplifying with (2),
% 9.98/2.17  |              (4) gives:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (9)   ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(101, v0) & d(kiel, hamburg) = v0)
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | DELTA: instantiating (9) with fresh symbol all_130_0 gives:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (10)  $lesseq(101, all_130_0) & d(kiel, hamburg) = all_130_0
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | ALPHA: (10) implies:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (11)  $lesseq(101, all_130_0)
% 9.98/2.17  |   (12)  d(kiel, hamburg) = all_130_0
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (7) with 90, all_130_0, hamburg, kiel, simplifying
% 9.98/2.17  |              with (8), (12) gives:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (13)  all_130_0 = 90
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | REDUCE: (11), (13) imply:
% 9.98/2.17  |   (14)  $false
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  | CLOSE: (14) is inconsistent.
% 9.98/2.17  | 
% 9.98/2.17  End of proof
% 9.98/2.17  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 9.98/2.17  
% 9.98/2.17  1566ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------