TSTP Solution File: SWC364+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SWC364+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n005.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 20:51:03 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 88.30s 17.79s
% Output : Proof 88.71s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.12 % Problem : SWC364+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.10/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n005.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 : Mon Aug 28 16:54:08 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.60 ________ _____
% 0.19/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.19/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.19/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.60 (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.60 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.61 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.19/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 4.46/1.65 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 4.46/1.66 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 4.46/1.69 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 4.46/1.69 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 4.46/1.69 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 4.46/1.69 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 4.82/1.72 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 13.98/3.59 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 14.18/3.64 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 14.18/3.73 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 14.18/3.74 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 14.48/3.79 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 20.63/4.96 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 22.16/5.32 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 56.61/11.96 Prover 2: stopped
% 56.61/11.98 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 58.18/12.19 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 59.92/12.48 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 67.39/14.00 Prover 5: stopped
% 67.39/14.02 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 68.81/14.17 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 68.81/14.18 Prover 3: gave up
% 68.81/14.20 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889
% 69.65/14.33 Prover 9: Preprocessing ...
% 70.74/14.66 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 71.31/14.68 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 77.54/15.92 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ...
% 77.54/15.99 Prover 1: stopped
% 77.89/16.00 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 78.64/16.12 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 79.57/16.30 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 88.30/17.77 Prover 10: Found proof (size 31)
% 88.30/17.77 Prover 10: proved (1770ms)
% 88.30/17.77 Prover 0: stopped
% 88.30/17.77 Prover 7: stopped
% 88.30/17.77 Prover 9: stopped
% 88.30/17.78 Prover 8: stopped
% 88.30/17.78 Prover 6: stopped
% 88.30/17.78 Prover 4: stopped
% 88.30/17.78
% 88.30/17.79 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 88.30/17.79
% 88.30/17.79 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 88.52/17.80 Assumptions after simplification:
% 88.52/17.80 ---------------------------------
% 88.52/17.80
% 88.52/17.80 (ax1)
% 88.52/17.81 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssItem(v1) |
% 88.52/17.81 ~ ssItem(v0) | neq(v0, v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ neq(v0, v0) |
% 88.52/17.81 ~ ssItem(v0))
% 88.52/17.81
% 88.52/17.81 (ax16)
% 88.71/17.85 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v1, v0) = v2) | ~ $i(v1)
% 88.71/17.85 | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | ~ ssItem(v1) | ssList(v2))
% 88.71/17.85
% 88.71/17.85 (ax17)
% 88.71/17.85 $i(nil) & ssList(nil)
% 88.71/17.85
% 88.71/17.85 (ax2)
% 88.71/17.85 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ( ~ (v1 = v0) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssItem(v1) &
% 88.71/17.85 ssItem(v0))
% 88.71/17.85
% 88.71/17.85 (ax42)
% 88.71/17.85 ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v0) | frontsegP(v0, v0))
% 88.71/17.85
% 88.71/17.85 (ax5)
% 88.71/17.86 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (app(v1, v2) = v0) | ~ $i(v2) |
% 88.71/17.86 ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v2) | ~ ssList(v1) | ~ ssList(v0) |
% 88.71/17.86 frontsegP(v0, v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 88.71/17.86 frontsegP(v0, v1) | ~ ssList(v1) | ~ ssList(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : (app(v1,
% 88.71/17.86 v2) = v0 & $i(v2) & ssList(v2)))
% 88.71/17.86
% 88.71/17.86 (ax58)
% 88.71/17.86 $i(nil) & ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = nil | ~ $i(v0) | ~ segmentP(nil, v0) | ~
% 88.71/17.86 ssList(v0)) & ( ~ ssList(nil) | segmentP(nil, nil))
% 88.71/17.86
% 88.71/17.86 (ax7)
% 88.71/17.86 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ! [v4: $i] : ( ~
% 88.71/17.86 (app(v3, v4) = v0) | ~ (app(v2, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v4) | ~ $i(v2) | ~
% 88.71/17.86 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v4) | ~ ssList(v2) | ~ ssList(v1) | ~
% 88.71/17.86 ssList(v0) | segmentP(v0, v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~
% 88.71/17.86 $i(v0) | ~ segmentP(v0, v1) | ~ ssList(v1) | ~ ssList(v0) | ? [v2: $i] :
% 88.71/17.86 ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : (app(v3, v4) = v0 & app(v2, v1) = v3 & $i(v4) &
% 88.71/17.86 $i(v3) & $i(v2) & ssList(v4) & ssList(v2)))
% 88.71/17.86
% 88.71/17.86 (ax81)
% 88.71/17.87 $i(nil) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 88.71/17.87 (cons(v1, nil) = v2) | ~ (app(v2, v0) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 88.71/17.87 ssList(v0) | ~ ssItem(v1) | (cons(v1, v0) = v3 & $i(v3)))
% 88.71/17.87
% 88.71/17.87 (co1)
% 88.71/17.87 $i(nil) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : (cons(v2,
% 88.71/17.87 nil) = v3 & app(v3, v0) = v1 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) &
% 88.71/17.87 ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) & neq(v1, nil) & ssItem(v2) & ~ segmentP(v1, v0))
% 88.71/17.87
% 88.71/17.87 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 88.71/17.87 --------------------------------------------
% 88.71/17.87 ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax18, ax19, ax20, ax21, ax22, ax23, ax24,
% 88.71/17.87 ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32, ax33, ax34, ax35, ax36,
% 88.71/17.87 ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax43, ax44, ax45, ax46, ax47, ax48, ax49,
% 88.71/17.87 ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax55, ax56, ax57, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, ax62,
% 88.71/17.87 ax63, ax64, ax65, ax66, ax67, ax68, ax69, ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, ax74, ax75,
% 88.71/17.87 ax76, ax77, ax78, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax82, ax83, ax84, ax85, ax86, ax87, ax88,
% 88.71/17.87 ax89, ax9, ax90, ax91, ax92, ax93, ax94, ax95
% 88.71/17.87
% 88.71/17.87 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 88.71/17.87 ---------------------------------
% 88.71/17.87
% 88.71/17.87 Begin of proof
% 88.71/17.87 |
% 88.71/17.87 | ALPHA: (ax1) implies:
% 88.71/17.87 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 88.71/17.87 | ssItem(v1) | ~ ssItem(v0) | neq(v0, v1))
% 88.71/17.87 |
% 88.71/17.87 | ALPHA: (ax5) implies:
% 88.71/17.87 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ frontsegP(v0,
% 88.71/17.87 | v1) | ~ ssList(v1) | ~ ssList(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : (app(v1, v2) =
% 88.71/17.87 | v0 & $i(v2) & ssList(v2)))
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.88 | ALPHA: (ax7) implies:
% 88.71/17.88 | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ! [v4: $i] : (
% 88.71/17.88 | ~ (app(v3, v4) = v0) | ~ (app(v2, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v4) | ~ $i(v2)
% 88.71/17.88 | | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ssList(v4) | ~ ssList(v2) | ~
% 88.71/17.88 | ssList(v1) | ~ ssList(v0) | segmentP(v0, v1))
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.88 | ALPHA: (ax17) implies:
% 88.71/17.88 | (4) ssList(nil)
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.88 | ALPHA: (ax58) implies:
% 88.71/17.88 | (5) ~ ssList(nil) | segmentP(nil, nil)
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.88 | ALPHA: (ax81) implies:
% 88.71/17.88 | (6) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v1,
% 88.71/17.88 | nil) = v2) | ~ (app(v2, v0) = v3) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 88.71/17.88 | ssList(v0) | ~ ssItem(v1) | (cons(v1, v0) = v3 & $i(v3)))
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.88 | ALPHA: (co1) implies:
% 88.71/17.88 | (7) $i(nil)
% 88.71/17.88 | (8) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : (cons(v2, nil)
% 88.71/17.88 | = v3 & app(v3, v0) = v1 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) &
% 88.71/17.88 | ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) & neq(v1, nil) & ssItem(v2) & ~ segmentP(v1,
% 88.71/17.88 | v0))
% 88.71/17.88 |
% 88.71/17.89 | DELTA: instantiating (ax2) with fresh symbols all_89_0, all_89_1 gives:
% 88.71/17.89 | (9) ~ (all_89_0 = all_89_1) & $i(all_89_0) & $i(all_89_1) &
% 88.71/17.89 | ssItem(all_89_0) & ssItem(all_89_1)
% 88.71/17.89 |
% 88.71/17.89 | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 88.71/17.89 | (10) ~ (all_89_0 = all_89_1)
% 88.71/17.89 | (11) ssItem(all_89_1)
% 88.71/17.89 | (12) ssItem(all_89_0)
% 88.71/17.89 | (13) $i(all_89_1)
% 88.71/17.89 | (14) $i(all_89_0)
% 88.71/17.89 |
% 88.71/17.89 | DELTA: instantiating (8) with fresh symbols all_91_0, all_91_1, all_91_2,
% 88.71/17.89 | all_91_3 gives:
% 88.71/17.89 | (15) cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_0 & app(all_91_0, all_91_3) = all_91_2 &
% 88.71/17.89 | $i(all_91_0) & $i(all_91_1) & $i(all_91_2) & $i(all_91_3) &
% 88.71/17.89 | ssList(all_91_2) & ssList(all_91_3) & neq(all_91_2, nil) &
% 88.71/17.89 | ssItem(all_91_1) & ~ segmentP(all_91_2, all_91_3)
% 88.71/17.89 |
% 88.71/17.89 | ALPHA: (15) implies:
% 88.71/17.89 | (16) ~ segmentP(all_91_2, all_91_3)
% 88.71/17.89 | (17) ssItem(all_91_1)
% 88.71/17.89 | (18) ssList(all_91_3)
% 88.71/17.89 | (19) ssList(all_91_2)
% 88.71/17.89 | (20) $i(all_91_3)
% 88.71/17.89 | (21) $i(all_91_2)
% 88.71/17.89 | (22) $i(all_91_1)
% 88.71/17.89 | (23) $i(all_91_0)
% 88.71/17.89 | (24) app(all_91_0, all_91_3) = all_91_2
% 88.71/17.89 | (25) cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_0
% 88.71/17.89 |
% 88.71/17.89 | BETA: splitting (5) gives:
% 88.71/17.89 |
% 88.71/17.89 | Case 1:
% 88.71/17.89 | |
% 88.71/17.89 | | (26) ~ ssList(nil)
% 88.71/17.89 | |
% 88.71/17.89 | | PRED_UNIFY: (4), (26) imply:
% 88.71/17.89 | | (27) $false
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent.
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | Case 2:
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_89_1, all_89_0, simplifying with
% 88.71/17.90 | | (11), (12), (13), (14) gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | (28) all_89_0 = all_89_1 | neq(all_89_1, all_89_0)
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax42) with all_91_2, simplifying with (19), (21)
% 88.71/17.90 | | gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | (29) frontsegP(all_91_2, all_91_2)
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax16) with nil, all_91_1, all_91_0, simplifying
% 88.71/17.90 | | with (4), (7), (17), (22), (25) gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | (30) ssList(all_91_0)
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with all_91_3, all_91_1, all_91_0, all_91_2,
% 88.71/17.90 | | simplifying with (17), (18), (20), (22), (24), (25) gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | (31) cons(all_91_1, all_91_3) = all_91_2 & $i(all_91_2)
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | BETA: splitting (28) gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | Case 1:
% 88.71/17.90 | | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_91_2, all_91_2, simplifying with
% 88.71/17.90 | | | (19), (21), (29) gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | | (32) ? [v0: $i] : (app(all_91_2, v0) = all_91_2 & $i(v0) & ssList(v0))
% 88.71/17.90 | | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | | DELTA: instantiating (32) with fresh symbol all_141_0 gives:
% 88.71/17.90 | | | (33) app(all_91_2, all_141_0) = all_91_2 & $i(all_141_0) &
% 88.71/17.90 | | | ssList(all_141_0)
% 88.71/17.90 | | |
% 88.71/17.90 | | | ALPHA: (33) implies:
% 88.71/17.90 | | | (34) ssList(all_141_0)
% 88.71/17.90 | | | (35) $i(all_141_0)
% 88.71/17.91 | | | (36) app(all_91_2, all_141_0) = all_91_2
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_91_2, all_91_3, all_91_0,
% 88.71/17.91 | | | all_91_2, all_141_0, simplifying with (16), (18), (19), (20),
% 88.71/17.91 | | | (21), (23), (24), (30), (34), (35), (36) gives:
% 88.71/17.91 | | | (37) $false
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | | CLOSE: (37) is inconsistent.
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | Case 2:
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | | (38) all_89_0 = all_89_1
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | | REDUCE: (10), (38) imply:
% 88.71/17.91 | | | (39) $false
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | | CLOSE: (39) is inconsistent.
% 88.71/17.91 | | |
% 88.71/17.91 | | End of split
% 88.71/17.91 | |
% 88.71/17.91 | End of split
% 88.71/17.91 |
% 88.71/17.91 End of proof
% 88.71/17.91 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 88.71/17.91
% 88.71/17.91 17305ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------