TSTP Solution File: ARI670_1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : ARI670_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n028.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 17:48:45 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 3.29s 1.18s
% Output   : Proof 3.29s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : ARI670_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.34  % Computer : n028.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 18:54:26 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.61  ________       _____
% 0.20/0.61  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.61  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.20/0.61  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.20/0.61  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.61  (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.61  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.61                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.61  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.61  
% 0.20/0.61  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.62  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.52/0.64  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 1.99/0.98  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.40/1.03  Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.18  Prover 6: proved (544ms)
% 3.29/1.18  Prover 0: proved (552ms)
% 3.29/1.18  Prover 2: proved (549ms)
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  Prover 3: proved (550ms)
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.18  
% 3.29/1.19  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.19  
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 5: proved (547ms)
% 3.29/1.19  
% 3.29/1.19  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.19  
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 3.29/1.19  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.20  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 1: Found proof (size 26)
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 1: proved (581ms)
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 7: stopped
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 10: stopped
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 4: Found proof (size 26)
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 4: proved (578ms)
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 11: stopped
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 13: stopped
% 3.29/1.21  Prover 8: stopped
% 3.29/1.21  
% 3.29/1.21  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.29/1.21  
% 3.29/1.22  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 3.29/1.22  Assumptions after simplification:
% 3.29/1.22  ---------------------------------
% 3.29/1.22  
% 3.29/1.22    (conj)
% 3.29/1.23     ? [v0: int] : ($lesseq(1, $difference(a, v0)) & $product(a, a) = v0)
% 3.29/1.23  
% 3.29/1.23  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 3.29/1.23  ---------------------------------
% 3.29/1.23  
% 3.29/1.23  Begin of proof
% 3.29/1.23  | 
% 3.29/1.23  | DELTA: instantiating (conj) with fresh symbol all_2_0 gives:
% 3.29/1.23  |   (1)  $lesseq(1, $difference(a, all_2_0)) & $product(a, a) = all_2_0
% 3.29/1.23  | 
% 3.29/1.23  | ALPHA: (1) implies:
% 3.29/1.23  |   (2)  $lesseq(1, $difference(a, all_2_0))
% 3.29/1.24  |   (3)  $product(a, a) = all_2_0
% 3.29/1.24  | 
% 3.29/1.24  | THEORY_AXIOM GroebnerMultiplication: 
% 3.29/1.24  |   (4)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1))) | 
% 3.29/1.24  |          ~ ($lesseq(v1, 458328)) |  ~ ($product(v0, v0) = v1))
% 3.29/1.24  | 
% 3.29/1.24  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with a, all_2_0, simplifying with (3) gives:
% 3.29/1.24  |   (5)   ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(a, all_2_0))) |  ~ ($lesseq(all_2_0,
% 3.29/1.24  |            458328))
% 3.29/1.24  | 
% 3.29/1.24  | BETA: splitting (5) gives:
% 3.29/1.24  | 
% 3.29/1.24  | Case 1:
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | |   (6)  $lesseq(a, all_2_0)
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (6) imply:
% 3.29/1.24  | |   (7)  $false
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | | CLOSE: (7) is inconsistent.
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | Case 2:
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | |   (8)  $lesseq(458329, all_2_0)
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (8) imply:
% 3.29/1.24  | |   (9)  $lesseq(458330, a)
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | | THEORY_AXIOM GroebnerMultiplication: 
% 3.29/1.24  | |   (10)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, v1)))
% 3.29/1.24  | |           |  ~ ($lesseq(v1, 999999999999)) |  ~ ($lesseq(458330, v0)) |  ~
% 3.29/1.24  | |           ($product(v0, v0) = v1))
% 3.29/1.24  | | 
% 3.29/1.24  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (10) with a, all_2_0, simplifying with (3) gives:
% 3.29/1.25  | |   (11)   ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(a, all_2_0))) |  ~ ($lesseq(all_2_0,
% 3.29/1.25  | |             999999999999)) |  ~ ($lesseq(458330, a))
% 3.29/1.25  | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | BETA: splitting (11) gives:
% 3.29/1.25  | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | Case 1:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | |   (12)  $lesseq(a, all_2_0)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (12) imply:
% 3.29/1.25  | | |   (13)  $false
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | CLOSE: (13) is inconsistent.
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | Case 2:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | |   (14)   ~ ($lesseq(all_2_0, 999999999999)) |  ~ ($lesseq(458330, a))
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | BETA: splitting (14) gives:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | Case 1:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |   (15)  $lesseq(a, 458329)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (9), (15) imply:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |   (16)  $false
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | CLOSE: (16) is inconsistent.
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | Case 2:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |   (17)  $lesseq(1000000000000, all_2_0)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | THEORY_AXIOM GroebnerMultiplication: 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |   (18)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(210066388901,
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |               $difference($product(916660, v0), v1))) |  ~
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |           ($lesseq(458330, v0)) |  ~ ($product(v0, v0) = v1))
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (18) with a, all_2_0, simplifying with (3)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |              gives:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |   (19)   ~ ($lesseq(210066388901, $difference($product(916660, a),
% 3.29/1.25  | | | |               all_2_0))) |  ~ ($lesseq(458330, a))
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | BETA: splitting (19) gives:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | Case 1:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (20)  $lesseq(a, 458329)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (9), (20) imply:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (21)  $false
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent.
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | Case 2:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (22)  $lesseq(-210066388900, $difference(all_2_0, $product(916660,
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |               a)))
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (22) imply:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (23)  $lesseq(a, 229165)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | SIMP: (23) implies:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (24)  $lesseq(a, 229165)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (2), (17) imply:
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | |   (25)  $lesseq(1000000000001, a)
% 3.29/1.25  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (24), (25) imply:
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | |   (26)  $false
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | | CLOSE: (26) is inconsistent.
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | End of split
% 3.29/1.26  | | | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | | | End of split
% 3.29/1.26  | | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | | End of split
% 3.29/1.26  | | 
% 3.29/1.26  | End of split
% 3.29/1.26  | 
% 3.29/1.26  End of proof
% 3.29/1.26  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 3.29/1.26  
% 3.29/1.26  647ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------