TSTP Solution File: LCL455+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : LCL455+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : Thu Aug 31 08:11:20 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 10.16s 2.09s
% Output : Proof 12.00s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : LCL455+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 18:48:55 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % 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.
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 0.19/0.65 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 2.90/1.15 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.90/1.15 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 3.70/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 3.70/1.21 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.70/1.21 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 3.70/1.21 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.70/1.21 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 8.85/1.91 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.90/1.92 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 8.90/1.93 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.90/1.94 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.90/1.95 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.53/2.02 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 9.53/2.07 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 10.16/2.09 Prover 6: proved (1447ms)
% 10.16/2.09
% 10.16/2.09 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.16/2.09
% 10.16/2.11 Prover 3: proved (1446ms)
% 10.16/2.11
% 10.16/2.11 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.16/2.11
% 10.16/2.13 Prover 5: stopped
% 10.16/2.13 Prover 0: stopped
% 10.16/2.14 Prover 2: stopped
% 10.16/2.15 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 10.16/2.15 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 10.16/2.15 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 10.16/2.15 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 10.16/2.16 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 10.16/2.17 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 1: Found proof (size 19)
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 1: proved (1589ms)
% 10.16/2.22 Prover 4: stopped
% 10.16/2.25 Prover 7: stopped
% 10.16/2.27 Prover 11: stopped
% 10.16/2.27 Prover 13: stopped
% 10.16/2.27 Prover 10: stopped
% 11.57/2.35 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.57/2.37 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.57/2.37 Prover 8: stopped
% 11.57/2.37
% 11.57/2.37 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 11.57/2.37
% 11.57/2.38 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 11.57/2.38 Assumptions after simplification:
% 11.57/2.38 ---------------------------------
% 11.57/2.38
% 11.57/2.38 (hilbert_or_2)
% 11.57/2.39 or_2
% 11.57/2.39
% 11.57/2.39 (or_2)
% 12.00/2.41 (or_2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0,
% 12.00/2.41 v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) |
% 12.00/2.41 is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)) | ( ~ or_2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2:
% 12.00/2.41 $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 &
% 12.00/2.41 implies(v1, v2) = v3 & is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) &
% 12.00/2.41 $i(v0)))
% 12.00/2.41
% 12.00/2.41 (principia_r2)
% 12.00/2.41 ~ r2
% 12.00/2.41
% 12.00/2.41 (r2)
% 12.00/2.41 (r2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0, v1)
% 12.00/2.41 = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) |
% 12.00/2.41 is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)) | ( ~ r2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i]
% 12.00/2.41 : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1,
% 12.00/2.41 v2) = v3 & is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0)))
% 12.00/2.41
% 12.00/2.41 (function-axioms)
% 12.00/2.42 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (or(v3,
% 12.00/2.42 v2) = v1) | ~ (or(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2:
% 12.00/2.42 $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (and(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (and(v3, v2) =
% 12.00/2.42 v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |
% 12.00/2.42 ~ (equiv(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (equiv(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1:
% 12.00/2.42 $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (implies(v3, v2) = v1) | ~
% 12.00/2.42 (implies(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0
% 12.00/2.42 | ~ (not(v2) = v1) | ~ (not(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : !
% 12.00/2.42 [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v1)
% 12.00/2.42 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v0))
% 12.00/2.42
% 12.00/2.42 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 12.00/2.42 --------------------------------------------
% 12.00/2.42 and_1, and_2, and_3, cn1, cn2, cn3, equivalence_1, equivalence_2, equivalence_3,
% 12.00/2.42 hilbert_and_1, hilbert_and_2, hilbert_and_3, hilbert_equivalence_1,
% 12.00/2.42 hilbert_equivalence_2, hilbert_equivalence_3, hilbert_implies_1,
% 12.00/2.42 hilbert_implies_2, hilbert_implies_3, hilbert_modus_ponens,
% 12.00/2.42 hilbert_modus_tollens, hilbert_op_equiv, hilbert_op_implies_and, hilbert_op_or,
% 12.00/2.42 hilbert_or_1, hilbert_or_3, implies_1, implies_2, implies_3, kn1, kn2, kn3,
% 12.00/2.42 modus_ponens, modus_tollens, op_and, op_equiv, op_implies_and, op_implies_or,
% 12.00/2.42 op_or, or_1, or_3, principia_op_and, principia_op_equiv,
% 12.00/2.42 principia_op_implies_or, r1, r3, r4, r5, substitution_of_equivalents
% 12.00/2.42
% 12.00/2.42 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 12.00/2.42 ---------------------------------
% 12.00/2.42
% 12.00/2.42 Begin of proof
% 12.00/2.42 |
% 12.00/2.42 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 12.00/2.42 | (1) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] :
% 12.00/2.42 | (v1 = v0 | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v1) | ~ (is_a_theorem(v2) = v0))
% 12.00/2.42 |
% 12.00/2.42 | BETA: splitting (or_2) gives:
% 12.00/2.42 |
% 12.00/2.42 | Case 1:
% 12.00/2.42 | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | (2) or_2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 12.00/2.42 | | (or(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~
% 12.00/2.42 | | $i(v0) | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)
% 12.00/2.42 | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | ALPHA: (2) implies:
% 12.00/2.42 | | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (or(v0,
% 12.00/2.42 | | v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) |
% 12.00/2.42 | | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)
% 12.00/2.42 | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | BETA: splitting (r2) gives:
% 12.00/2.42 | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | Case 1:
% 12.00/2.42 | | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | | (4) r2 & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 12.00/2.42 | | | (or(v0, v1) = v2) | ~ (implies(v1, v2) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~
% 12.00/2.42 | | | $i(v0) | is_a_theorem(v3) = 0)
% 12.00/2.42 | | |
% 12.00/2.42 | | | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (5) r2
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | PRED_UNIFY: (5), (principia_r2) imply:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (6) $false
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | CLOSE: (6) is inconsistent.
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | Case 2:
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (7) ~ r2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ?
% 12.00/2.43 | | | [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 &
% 12.00/2.43 | | | is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | ALPHA: (7) implies:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (8) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 &
% 12.00/2.43 | | | is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | DELTA: instantiating (8) with fresh symbols all_85_0, all_85_1, all_85_2,
% 12.00/2.43 | | | all_85_3, all_85_4 gives:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (9) ~ (all_85_0 = 0) & or(all_85_4, all_85_3) = all_85_2 &
% 12.00/2.43 | | | implies(all_85_3, all_85_2) = all_85_1 & is_a_theorem(all_85_1) =
% 12.00/2.43 | | | all_85_0 & $i(all_85_1) & $i(all_85_2) & $i(all_85_3) &
% 12.00/2.43 | | | $i(all_85_4)
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (10) ~ (all_85_0 = 0)
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (11) $i(all_85_4)
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (12) $i(all_85_3)
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (13) is_a_theorem(all_85_1) = all_85_0
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (14) implies(all_85_3, all_85_2) = all_85_1
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (15) or(all_85_4, all_85_3) = all_85_2
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_85_4, all_85_3, all_85_2,
% 12.00/2.43 | | | all_85_1, simplifying with (11), (12), (14), (15) gives:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (16) is_a_theorem(all_85_1) = 0
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_85_0, 0, all_85_1, simplifying
% 12.00/2.43 | | | with (13), (16) gives:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (17) all_85_0 = 0
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | REDUCE: (10), (17) imply:
% 12.00/2.43 | | | (18) $false
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent.
% 12.00/2.43 | | |
% 12.00/2.43 | | End of split
% 12.00/2.43 | |
% 12.00/2.43 | Case 2:
% 12.00/2.43 | |
% 12.00/2.44 | | (19) ~ or_2 & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ?
% 12.00/2.44 | | [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & or(v0, v1) = v2 & implies(v1, v2) = v3 &
% 12.00/2.44 | | is_a_theorem(v3) = v4 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 12.00/2.44 | |
% 12.00/2.44 | | ALPHA: (19) implies:
% 12.00/2.44 | | (20) ~ or_2
% 12.00/2.44 | |
% 12.00/2.44 | | PRED_UNIFY: (20), (hilbert_or_2) imply:
% 12.00/2.44 | | (21) $false
% 12.00/2.44 | |
% 12.00/2.44 | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent.
% 12.00/2.44 | |
% 12.00/2.44 | End of split
% 12.00/2.44 |
% 12.00/2.44 End of proof
% 12.00/2.44 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 12.00/2.44
% 12.00/2.44 1823ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------