TSTP Solution File: ARI617_1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : ARI617_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n027.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 17:48:35 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 3.41s 1.23s
% Output   : Proof 4.79s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : ARI617_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.1.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.34  % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.34  % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 18:44:38 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.53/0.62  ________       _____
% 0.53/0.62  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.53/0.62  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.53/0.62  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.53/0.62  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.53/0.62  
% 0.53/0.62  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.53/0.62  (2023-06-19)
% 0.53/0.62  
% 0.53/0.62  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.53/0.62  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.53/0.62                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.53/0.62  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.53/0.62  
% 0.53/0.62  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.53/0.62  
% 0.53/0.63  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.53/0.64  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.53/0.65  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 1.85/0.99  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 1.85/0.99  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.35/1.03  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.35/1.03  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.35/1.03  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.35/1.03  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.35/1.03  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.06/1.10  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.06/1.10  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 3.06/1.10  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.06/1.11  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.06/1.11  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.06/1.11  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 3.06/1.12  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 3: proved (583ms)
% 3.41/1.23  
% 3.41/1.23  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.41/1.23  
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 5: stopped
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 2: stopped
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 0: stopped
% 3.41/1.23  Prover 6: stopped
% 3.41/1.24  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 3.41/1.25  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 3.41/1.26  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 3.41/1.26  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 3.41/1.26  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 3.41/1.27  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 3.41/1.27  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 4: Found proof (size 31)
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 4: proved (646ms)
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 7: stopped
% 4.24/1.29  Prover 1: Found proof (size 32)
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 1: proved (651ms)
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 8: stopped
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 11: stopped
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.24/1.30  Prover 10: stopped
% 4.24/1.31  Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 4.24/1.31  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.24/1.31  Prover 13: stopped
% 4.24/1.32  
% 4.24/1.32  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.24/1.32  
% 4.24/1.32  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.24/1.32  Assumptions after simplification:
% 4.24/1.32  ---------------------------------
% 4.24/1.33  
% 4.24/1.33    (absolute_value_defs)
% 4.67/1.35     ? [v0: int] :  ? [v1: int] :  ? [v2: int] : ( ~ (v2 = v1) & g(v0) = v2 &
% 4.67/1.35      f(v0) = v1 &  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : (v4 = v3 | $sum(v4, v3) = 0 |  ~
% 4.67/1.35        (g(v3) = v4)) &  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1,
% 4.67/1.35            $difference($product(-1, v4), v3))) |  ~ (f(v3) = v4)) &  ! [v3: int]
% 4.67/1.35      :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v3, v4))) |  ~ (f(v3) = v4)) & 
% 4.67/1.35      ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v4, -1)) |  ~ (g(v3) = v4)) &  !
% 4.67/1.35      [v3: int] :  ! [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v4, v3))) |  ~
% 4.67/1.35        ($lesseq(1, $sum(v4, v3))) |  ~ (f(v3) = v4)))
% 4.67/1.35  
% 4.67/1.35  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 4.67/1.35  ---------------------------------
% 4.67/1.35  
% 4.67/1.35  Begin of proof
% 4.67/1.36  | 
% 4.67/1.36  | DELTA: instantiating (absolute_value_defs) with fresh symbols all_3_0,
% 4.67/1.36  |        all_3_1, all_3_2 gives:
% 4.67/1.36  |   (1)   ~ (all_3_0 = all_3_1) & g(all_3_2) = all_3_0 & f(all_3_2) = all_3_1 & 
% 4.67/1.36  |        ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : (v1 = v0 | $sum(v1, v0) = 0 |  ~ (g(v0) =
% 4.67/1.36  |            v1)) &  ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1,
% 4.67/1.36  |              $difference($product(-1, v1), v0))) |  ~ (f(v0) = v1)) &  ! [v0:
% 4.67/1.36  |          int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1))) |  ~
% 4.67/1.36  |          (f(v0) = v1)) &  ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, -1)) |
% 4.67/1.36  |           ~ (g(v0) = v1)) &  ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1,
% 4.67/1.36  |              $difference(v1, v0))) |  ~ ($lesseq(1, $sum(v1, v0))) |  ~ (f(v0)
% 4.67/1.36  |            = v1))
% 4.67/1.36  | 
% 4.67/1.36  | ALPHA: (1) implies:
% 4.67/1.36  |   (2)   ~ (all_3_0 = all_3_1)
% 4.67/1.36  |   (3)  f(all_3_2) = all_3_1
% 4.67/1.36  |   (4)  g(all_3_2) = all_3_0
% 4.67/1.37  |   (5)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v1, v0))) | 
% 4.67/1.37  |          ~ ($lesseq(1, $sum(v1, v0))) |  ~ (f(v0) = v1))
% 4.67/1.37  |   (6)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, -1)) |  ~ (g(v0) = v1))
% 4.67/1.37  |   (7)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1))) | 
% 4.67/1.37  |          ~ (f(v0) = v1))
% 4.67/1.37  |   (8)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(-1,
% 4.67/1.37  |                  v1), v0))) |  ~ (f(v0) = v1))
% 4.67/1.37  |   (9)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : (v1 = v0 | $sum(v1, v0) = 0 |  ~ (g(v0) =
% 4.67/1.37  |            v1))
% 4.67/1.37  | 
% 4.67/1.37  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_3_2, all_3_1, simplifying with (3)
% 4.67/1.37  |              gives:
% 4.79/1.37  |   (10)  $lesseq(0, $sum(all_3_1, all_3_2))
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (7) with all_3_2, all_3_1, simplifying with (3)
% 4.79/1.37  |              gives:
% 4.79/1.37  |   (11)  $lesseq(all_3_2, all_3_1)
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with all_3_2, all_3_1, simplifying with (3)
% 4.79/1.37  |              gives:
% 4.79/1.37  |   (12)   ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(all_3_1, all_3_2))) |  ~ ($lesseq(1,
% 4.79/1.37  |             $sum(all_3_1, all_3_2)))
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (9) with all_3_2, all_3_0, simplifying with (4)
% 4.79/1.37  |              gives:
% 4.79/1.37  |   (13)  all_3_0 = all_3_2 | $sum(all_3_0, all_3_2) = 0
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with all_3_2, all_3_0, simplifying with (4)
% 4.79/1.37  |              gives:
% 4.79/1.37  |   (14)  $lesseq(0, all_3_0)
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | BETA: splitting (12) gives:
% 4.79/1.37  | 
% 4.79/1.37  | Case 1:
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | |   (15)  $lesseq(all_3_1, all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | ANTI_SYMM: (11), (15) imply:
% 4.79/1.37  | |   (16)  all_3_1 = all_3_2
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | REDUCE: (10), (16) imply:
% 4.79/1.37  | |   (17)  $lesseq(0, all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | SIMP: (17) implies:
% 4.79/1.37  | |   (18)  $lesseq(0, all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | REDUCE: (2), (16) imply:
% 4.79/1.37  | |   (19)   ~ (all_3_0 = all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | BETA: splitting (13) gives:
% 4.79/1.37  | | 
% 4.79/1.37  | | Case 1:
% 4.79/1.37  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (20)  all_3_0 = all_3_2
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | REDUCE: (19), (20) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (21)  $false
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent.
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | Case 2:
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (22)  $sum(all_3_0, all_3_2) = 0
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | REDUCE: (14), (22) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (23)  $lesseq(all_3_2, 0)
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | REDUCE: (19), (22) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (24)   ~ (all_3_2 = 0)
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | SIMP: (24) implies:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (25)   ~ (all_3_2 = 0)
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | STRENGTHEN: (18), (25) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (26)  $lesseq(1, all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (23), (26) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (27)  $false
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent.
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | End of split
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | Case 2:
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (28)  $lesseq(1, $difference(all_3_1, all_3_2))
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (29)  $lesseq(all_3_2, $product(-1, all_3_1))
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | ANTI_SYMM: (10), (29) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (30)  $sum(all_3_1, all_3_2) = 0
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | REDUCE: (28), (30) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (31)  $lesseq(all_3_2, -1)
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | SIMP: (31) implies:
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (32)  $lesseq(all_3_2, -1)
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | REDUCE: (2), (30) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | |   (33)   ~ ($sum(all_3_0, all_3_2) = 0)
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | BETA: splitting (13) gives:
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | Case 1:
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (34)  all_3_0 = all_3_2
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | REDUCE: (14), (34) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (35)  $lesseq(0, all_3_2)
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (32), (35) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (36)  $false
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | CLOSE: (36) is inconsistent.
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | Case 2:
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (37)  $sum(all_3_0, all_3_2) = 0
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | REDUCE: (33), (37) imply:
% 4.79/1.38  | | |   (38)  $false
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | | CLOSE: (38) is inconsistent.
% 4.79/1.38  | | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | | End of split
% 4.79/1.38  | | 
% 4.79/1.38  | End of split
% 4.79/1.38  | 
% 4.79/1.38  End of proof
% 4.79/1.38  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.79/1.38  
% 4.79/1.38  757ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------