TSTP Solution File: SEU127+2 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : SEU127+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n002.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 17:42:38 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 7.99s 1.87s
% Output   : Proof 10.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : SEU127+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.14  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.36  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.13/0.36  % DateTime : Wed Aug 23 17:02:01 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.21/0.62  ________       _____
% 0.21/0.62  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.21/0.62  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.21/0.62  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.21/0.62  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.21/0.62  (2023-06-19)
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.21/0.62  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.21/0.62                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.21/0.62  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.21/0.62  
% 0.21/0.62  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.21/0.64  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.21/0.65  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.78/1.12  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.78/1.12  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 3.08/1.16  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 3.08/1.16  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.08/1.16  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 3.08/1.16  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 3.08/1.16  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 6.12/1.60  Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.12/1.62  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 6.12/1.63  Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.62/1.66  Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.62/1.66  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 6.62/1.69  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.62/1.69  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.62/1.70  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 7.02/1.74  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.99/1.87  Prover 3: proved (1218ms)
% 7.99/1.87  
% 7.99/1.87  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 7.99/1.87  
% 7.99/1.87  Prover 6: stopped
% 7.99/1.88  Prover 2: stopped
% 7.99/1.88  Prover 5: stopped
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 0: stopped
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 8.26/1.89  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 8.26/1.93  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 8.26/1.93  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 8.26/1.93  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 8.26/1.93  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 8.76/1.97  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 8.76/2.04  Prover 1: Found proof (size 25)
% 8.76/2.04  Prover 1: proved (1400ms)
% 8.76/2.04  Prover 4: stopped
% 8.76/2.06  Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.76/2.07  Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.76/2.08  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.76/2.08  Prover 11: stopped
% 8.76/2.09  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.76/2.10  Prover 10: stopped
% 8.76/2.10  Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.76/2.10  Prover 13: stopped
% 8.76/2.12  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.76/2.12  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 9.28/2.13  Prover 7: stopped
% 9.28/2.13  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.28/2.14  Prover 8: stopped
% 9.28/2.14  
% 9.28/2.14  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.28/2.14  
% 9.28/2.15  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 9.28/2.15  Assumptions after simplification:
% 9.28/2.15  ---------------------------------
% 9.28/2.15  
% 9.28/2.15    (commutativity_k3_xboole_0)
% 10.09/2.18     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_intersection2(v0, v1) = v2)
% 10.09/2.18      |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) | (set_intersection2(v1, v0) = v2 & $i(v2)))
% 10.09/2.18  
% 10.09/2.18    (d3_tarski)
% 10.09/2.18     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 |  ~ (subset(v0, v1) = v2)
% 10.09/2.18      |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v3: $i] :  ? [v4: int] : ( ~ (v4 = 0) & in(v3,
% 10.09/2.18          v1) = v4 & in(v3, v0) = 0 & $i(v3))) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~
% 10.09/2.18      (subset(v0, v1) = 0) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (in(v2, v0)
% 10.09/2.18          = 0) |  ~ $i(v2) | in(v2, v1) = 0))
% 10.09/2.18  
% 10.09/2.18    (d3_xboole_0)
% 10.09/2.19     ? [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v3 = v0 |  ~
% 10.09/2.19      (set_intersection2(v1, v2) = v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ?
% 10.09/2.19      [v4: $i] :  ? [v5: any] :  ? [v6: any] :  ? [v7: any] : (in(v4, v2) = v7 &
% 10.09/2.19        in(v4, v1) = v6 & in(v4, v0) = v5 & $i(v4) & ( ~ (v7 = 0) |  ~ (v6 = 0) | 
% 10.09/2.19          ~ (v5 = 0)) & (v5 = 0 | (v7 = 0 & v6 = 0)))) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i]
% 10.09/2.19    :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_intersection2(v0, v1) = v2) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |
% 10.09/2.19       ~ $i(v0) | ( ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: any] : ( ~ (in(v3, v0) = v4) |  ~ $i(v3)
% 10.09/2.19          |  ? [v5: any] :  ? [v6: any] : (in(v3, v2) = v5 & in(v3, v1) = v6 & ( ~
% 10.09/2.19              (v5 = 0) | (v6 = 0 & v4 = 0)))) &  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (in(v3, v0) = 0)
% 10.09/2.19          |  ~ $i(v3) |  ? [v4: any] :  ? [v5: any] : (in(v3, v2) = v5 & in(v3,
% 10.09/2.19              v1) = v4 & ( ~ (v4 = 0) | v5 = 0)))))
% 10.09/2.19  
% 10.09/2.19    (t17_xboole_1)
% 10.09/2.19     ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) &
% 10.09/2.19      subset(v2, v0) = v3 & set_intersection2(v0, v1) = v2 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) &
% 10.09/2.19      $i(v0))
% 10.09/2.19  
% 10.09/2.19    (function-axioms)
% 10.09/2.20     ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  !
% 10.09/2.20    [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (disjoint(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (disjoint(v3, v2) = v0))
% 10.09/2.20    &  ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  !
% 10.09/2.20    [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (subset(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (subset(v3, v2) = v0)) & 
% 10.09/2.20    ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 10.09/2.20      (set_intersection2(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (set_intersection2(v3, v2) = v0)) &  !
% 10.09/2.20    [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 10.09/2.20      (set_union2(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (set_union2(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 10.09/2.20      MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i]
% 10.09/2.20    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (in(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (in(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 10.09/2.20      MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | 
% 10.09/2.20      ~ (empty(v2) = v1) |  ~ (empty(v2) = v0))
% 10.09/2.20  
% 10.09/2.20  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 10.09/2.20  --------------------------------------------
% 10.09/2.20  antisymmetry_r2_hidden, commutativity_k2_xboole_0, d10_xboole_0, d1_xboole_0,
% 10.09/2.20  d2_xboole_0, d7_xboole_0, dt_k1_xboole_0, dt_k2_xboole_0, dt_k3_xboole_0,
% 10.09/2.20  fc1_xboole_0, fc2_xboole_0, fc3_xboole_0, idempotence_k2_xboole_0,
% 10.09/2.20  idempotence_k3_xboole_0, rc1_xboole_0, rc2_xboole_0, reflexivity_r1_tarski,
% 10.09/2.20  symmetry_r1_xboole_0, t12_xboole_1, t1_boole, t1_xboole_1, t2_boole,
% 10.09/2.20  t2_xboole_1, t3_xboole_0, t3_xboole_1, t4_xboole_0, t6_boole, t7_boole,
% 10.09/2.20  t7_xboole_1, t8_boole, t8_xboole_1
% 10.09/2.20  
% 10.09/2.20  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 10.09/2.20  ---------------------------------
% 10.09/2.20  
% 10.09/2.20  Begin of proof
% 10.09/2.20  | 
% 10.09/2.20  | ALPHA: (d3_tarski) implies:
% 10.09/2.20  |   (1)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: int] : (v2 = 0 |  ~ (subset(v0, v1)
% 10.09/2.20  |            = v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v3: $i] :  ? [v4: int] : ( ~
% 10.09/2.20  |            (v4 = 0) & in(v3, v1) = v4 & in(v3, v0) = 0 & $i(v3)))
% 10.09/2.20  | 
% 10.09/2.20  | ALPHA: (d3_xboole_0) implies:
% 10.09/2.20  |   (2)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (set_intersection2(v0,
% 10.09/2.20  |              v1) = v2) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) | ( ! [v3: $i] :  !
% 10.09/2.20  |            [v4: any] : ( ~ (in(v3, v0) = v4) |  ~ $i(v3) |  ? [v5: any] :  ?
% 10.09/2.20  |              [v6: any] : (in(v3, v2) = v5 & in(v3, v1) = v6 & ( ~ (v5 = 0) |
% 10.09/2.20  |                  (v6 = 0 & v4 = 0)))) &  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (in(v3, v0) = 0) | 
% 10.09/2.20  |              ~ $i(v3) |  ? [v4: any] :  ? [v5: any] : (in(v3, v2) = v5 &
% 10.09/2.20  |                in(v3, v1) = v4 & ( ~ (v4 = 0) | v5 = 0)))))
% 10.09/2.20  | 
% 10.09/2.20  | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 10.09/2.20  |   (3)   ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :
% 10.09/2.20  |         ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (in(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (in(v3, v2) = v0))
% 10.09/2.20  | 
% 10.09/2.20  | DELTA: instantiating (t17_xboole_1) with fresh symbols all_40_0, all_40_1,
% 10.09/2.20  |        all_40_2, all_40_3 gives:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (4)   ~ (all_40_0 = 0) & subset(all_40_1, all_40_3) = all_40_0 &
% 10.09/2.21  |        set_intersection2(all_40_3, all_40_2) = all_40_1 & $i(all_40_1) &
% 10.09/2.21  |        $i(all_40_2) & $i(all_40_3)
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (5)   ~ (all_40_0 = 0)
% 10.09/2.21  |   (6)  $i(all_40_3)
% 10.09/2.21  |   (7)  $i(all_40_2)
% 10.09/2.21  |   (8)  $i(all_40_1)
% 10.09/2.21  |   (9)  set_intersection2(all_40_3, all_40_2) = all_40_1
% 10.09/2.21  |   (10)  subset(all_40_1, all_40_3) = all_40_0
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_40_3, all_40_2, all_40_1, simplifying
% 10.09/2.21  |              with (6), (7), (8), (9) gives:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (11)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: any] : ( ~ (in(v0, all_40_3) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |
% 10.09/2.21  |            ? [v2: any] :  ? [v3: any] : (in(v0, all_40_1) = v2 & in(v0,
% 10.09/2.21  |               all_40_2) = v3 & ( ~ (v2 = 0) | (v3 = 0 & v1 = 0)))) &  ! [v0:
% 10.09/2.21  |           $i] : ( ~ (in(v0, all_40_3) = 0) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v1: any] :  ?
% 10.09/2.21  |           [v2: any] : (in(v0, all_40_1) = v2 & in(v0, all_40_2) = v1 & ( ~ (v1
% 10.09/2.21  |                 = 0) | v2 = 0)))
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | ALPHA: (11) implies:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (12)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: any] : ( ~ (in(v0, all_40_3) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |
% 10.09/2.21  |            ? [v2: any] :  ? [v3: any] : (in(v0, all_40_1) = v2 & in(v0,
% 10.09/2.21  |               all_40_2) = v3 & ( ~ (v2 = 0) | (v3 = 0 & v1 = 0))))
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (commutativity_k3_xboole_0) with all_40_3,
% 10.09/2.21  |              all_40_2, all_40_1, simplifying with (6), (7), (9) gives:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (13)  set_intersection2(all_40_2, all_40_3) = all_40_1 & $i(all_40_1)
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_40_1, all_40_3, all_40_0, simplifying
% 10.09/2.21  |              with (6), (8), (10) gives:
% 10.09/2.21  |   (14)  all_40_0 = 0 |  ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & in(v0,
% 10.09/2.21  |             all_40_1) = 0 & in(v0, all_40_3) = v1 & $i(v0))
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | BETA: splitting (14) gives:
% 10.09/2.21  | 
% 10.09/2.21  | Case 1:
% 10.09/2.21  | | 
% 10.09/2.21  | |   (15)  all_40_0 = 0
% 10.09/2.21  | | 
% 10.09/2.21  | | REDUCE: (5), (15) imply:
% 10.09/2.21  | |   (16)  $false
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | CLOSE: (16) is inconsistent.
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | Case 2:
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (17)   ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & in(v0, all_40_1) = 0 &
% 10.09/2.22  | |           in(v0, all_40_3) = v1 & $i(v0))
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | DELTA: instantiating (17) with fresh symbols all_57_0, all_57_1 gives:
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (18)   ~ (all_57_0 = 0) & in(all_57_1, all_40_1) = 0 & in(all_57_1,
% 10.09/2.22  | |           all_40_3) = all_57_0 & $i(all_57_1)
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | ALPHA: (18) implies:
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (19)   ~ (all_57_0 = 0)
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (20)  $i(all_57_1)
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (21)  in(all_57_1, all_40_3) = all_57_0
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (22)  in(all_57_1, all_40_1) = 0
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (12) with all_57_1, all_57_0, simplifying with
% 10.09/2.22  | |              (20), (21) gives:
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (23)   ? [v0: any] :  ? [v1: any] : (in(all_57_1, all_40_1) = v0 &
% 10.09/2.22  | |           in(all_57_1, all_40_2) = v1 & ( ~ (v0 = 0) | (v1 = 0 & all_57_0 =
% 10.09/2.22  | |               0)))
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | DELTA: instantiating (23) with fresh symbols all_69_0, all_69_1 gives:
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (24)  in(all_57_1, all_40_1) = all_69_1 & in(all_57_1, all_40_2) =
% 10.09/2.22  | |         all_69_0 & ( ~ (all_69_1 = 0) | (all_69_0 = 0 & all_57_0 = 0))
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | ALPHA: (24) implies:
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (25)  in(all_57_1, all_40_1) = all_69_1
% 10.09/2.22  | |   (26)   ~ (all_69_1 = 0) | (all_69_0 = 0 & all_57_0 = 0)
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | BETA: splitting (26) gives:
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | Case 1:
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (27)   ~ (all_69_1 = 0)
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with 0, all_69_1, all_40_1, all_57_1,
% 10.09/2.22  | | |              simplifying with (22), (25) gives:
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (28)  all_69_1 = 0
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | REDUCE: (27), (28) imply:
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (29)  $false
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | CLOSE: (29) is inconsistent.
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | Case 2:
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (30)  all_69_0 = 0 & all_57_0 = 0
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | ALPHA: (30) implies:
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (31)  all_57_0 = 0
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | REDUCE: (19), (31) imply:
% 10.09/2.22  | | |   (32)  $false
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | | CLOSE: (32) is inconsistent.
% 10.09/2.22  | | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | | End of split
% 10.09/2.22  | | 
% 10.09/2.22  | End of split
% 10.09/2.22  | 
% 10.09/2.22  End of proof
% 10.09/2.22  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 10.09/2.22  
% 10.09/2.22  1597ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------