TSTP Solution File: DAT001_1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : DAT001_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n016.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 22:18:50 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.69s 1.22s
% Output : Proof 4.76s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : DAT001_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.15/0.35 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % DateTime : Thu Aug 24 14:46:54 EDT 2023
% 0.15/0.35 % 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
% 1.93/0.98 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 1.93/0.98 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.43/1.02 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.43/1.02 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.43/1.02 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.43/1.02 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.43/1.03 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.69/1.22 Prover 3: proved (577ms)
% 3.69/1.22
% 3.69/1.22 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.69/1.22
% 3.69/1.22 Prover 0: stopped
% 3.69/1.22 Prover 2: stopped
% 3.69/1.23 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 3.69/1.23 Prover 6: stopped
% 3.69/1.23 Prover 5: stopped
% 3.69/1.23 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 3.69/1.23 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 3.80/1.23 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 3.80/1.23 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 3.80/1.25 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.25 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.26 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.26 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.27 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.28 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.80/1.29 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.80/1.30 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 3.80/1.30 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.80/1.30 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 3.80/1.30 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.80/1.31 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 4: Found proof (size 41)
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 4: proved (694ms)
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 11: stopped
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 10: Found proof (size 10)
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 10: proved (111ms)
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 8: stopped
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 13: stopped
% 4.40/1.34 Prover 1: stopped
% 4.40/1.35 Prover 7: stopped
% 4.40/1.35
% 4.40/1.35 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.40/1.35
% 4.40/1.36 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.40/1.36 Assumptions after simplification:
% 4.40/1.36 ---------------------------------
% 4.40/1.36
% 4.40/1.36 (check_list)
% 4.76/1.39 list(nil) & ? [v0: list] : ? [v1: list] : ? [v2: list] : ? [v3: list] : ?
% 4.76/1.39 [v4: list] : ? [v5: int] : ( ~ (v5 = 0) & mycons(100, nil) = v0 & mycons(7,
% 4.76/1.39 v0) = v1 & mycons(4, v1) = v2 & mycons(2, v2) = v3 & mycons(1, v3) = v4 &
% 4.76/1.39 sorted(v4) = v5 & list(v4) & list(v3) & list(v2) & list(v1) & list(v0))
% 4.76/1.39
% 4.76/1.39 (recursive_sort)
% 4.76/1.39 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: list] : ! [v3: list] : ! [v4: list] :
% 4.76/1.39 ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v1, v0))) | ~ (mycons(v1, v2) = v3) | ~
% 4.76/1.39 (mycons(v0, v3) = v4) | ~ list(v2) | ? [v5: any] : ? [v6: any] :
% 4.76/1.39 (sorted(v4) = v6 & sorted(v3) = v5 & ( ~ (v5 = 0) | v6 = 0)))
% 4.76/1.39
% 4.76/1.39 (single_is_sorted)
% 4.76/1.39 list(nil) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: list] : ( ~ (mycons(v0, nil) = v1) |
% 4.76/1.39 sorted(v1) = 0)
% 4.76/1.39
% 4.76/1.39 (function-axioms)
% 4.76/1.40 ! [v0: list] : ! [v1: list] : ! [v2: list] : ! [v3: int] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 4.76/1.40 (mycons(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (mycons(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 4.76/1.40 MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: list] : (v1 = v0 |
% 4.76/1.40 ~ (sorted(v2) = v1) | ~ (sorted(v2) = v0))
% 4.76/1.40
% 4.76/1.40 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 4.76/1.40 --------------------------------------------
% 4.76/1.40 empty_is_sorted
% 4.76/1.40
% 4.76/1.40 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 4.76/1.40 ---------------------------------
% 4.76/1.40
% 4.76/1.40 Begin of proof
% 4.76/1.40 |
% 4.76/1.40 | ALPHA: (single_is_sorted) implies:
% 4.76/1.40 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: list] : ( ~ (mycons(v0, nil) = v1) | sorted(v1)
% 4.76/1.40 | = 0)
% 4.76/1.40 |
% 4.76/1.40 | ALPHA: (check_list) implies:
% 4.76/1.40 | (2) list(nil)
% 4.76/1.40 | (3) ? [v0: list] : ? [v1: list] : ? [v2: list] : ? [v3: list] : ? [v4:
% 4.76/1.40 | list] : ? [v5: int] : ( ~ (v5 = 0) & mycons(100, nil) = v0 &
% 4.76/1.40 | mycons(7, v0) = v1 & mycons(4, v1) = v2 & mycons(2, v2) = v3 &
% 4.76/1.40 | mycons(1, v3) = v4 & sorted(v4) = v5 & list(v4) & list(v3) & list(v2)
% 4.76/1.40 | & list(v1) & list(v0))
% 4.76/1.40 |
% 4.76/1.40 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 4.76/1.40 | (4) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: list]
% 4.76/1.40 | : (v1 = v0 | ~ (sorted(v2) = v1) | ~ (sorted(v2) = v0))
% 4.76/1.40 |
% 4.76/1.41 | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_8_0, all_8_1, all_8_2,
% 4.76/1.41 | all_8_3, all_8_4, all_8_5 gives:
% 4.76/1.41 | (5) ~ (all_8_0 = 0) & mycons(100, nil) = all_8_5 & mycons(7, all_8_5) =
% 4.76/1.41 | all_8_4 & mycons(4, all_8_4) = all_8_3 & mycons(2, all_8_3) = all_8_2 &
% 4.76/1.41 | mycons(1, all_8_2) = all_8_1 & sorted(all_8_1) = all_8_0 &
% 4.76/1.41 | list(all_8_1) & list(all_8_2) & list(all_8_3) & list(all_8_4) &
% 4.76/1.41 | list(all_8_5)
% 4.76/1.41 |
% 4.76/1.41 | ALPHA: (5) implies:
% 4.76/1.41 | (6) ~ (all_8_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.41 | (7) list(all_8_5)
% 4.76/1.41 | (8) list(all_8_4)
% 4.76/1.41 | (9) list(all_8_3)
% 4.76/1.41 | (10) sorted(all_8_1) = all_8_0
% 4.76/1.41 | (11) mycons(1, all_8_2) = all_8_1
% 4.76/1.41 | (12) mycons(2, all_8_3) = all_8_2
% 4.76/1.41 | (13) mycons(4, all_8_4) = all_8_3
% 4.76/1.41 | (14) mycons(7, all_8_5) = all_8_4
% 4.76/1.41 | (15) mycons(100, nil) = all_8_5
% 4.76/1.41 |
% 4.76/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (recursive_sort) with 1, 2, all_8_3, all_8_2,
% 4.76/1.41 | all_8_1, simplifying with (9), (11), (12) gives:
% 4.76/1.41 | (16) ? [v0: any] : ? [v1: any] : (sorted(all_8_1) = v1 & sorted(all_8_2)
% 4.76/1.41 | = v0 & ( ~ (v0 = 0) | v1 = 0))
% 4.76/1.41 |
% 4.76/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (recursive_sort) with 2, 4, all_8_4, all_8_3,
% 4.76/1.41 | all_8_2, simplifying with (8), (12), (13) gives:
% 4.76/1.41 | (17) ? [v0: any] : ? [v1: any] : (sorted(all_8_2) = v1 & sorted(all_8_3)
% 4.76/1.42 | = v0 & ( ~ (v0 = 0) | v1 = 0))
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (recursive_sort) with 4, 7, all_8_5, all_8_4,
% 4.76/1.42 | all_8_3, simplifying with (7), (13), (14) gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (18) ? [v0: any] : ? [v1: any] : (sorted(all_8_3) = v1 & sorted(all_8_4)
% 4.76/1.42 | = v0 & ( ~ (v0 = 0) | v1 = 0))
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (recursive_sort) with 7, 100, nil, all_8_5,
% 4.76/1.42 | all_8_4, simplifying with (2), (14), (15) gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (19) ? [v0: any] : ? [v1: any] : (sorted(all_8_4) = v1 & sorted(all_8_5)
% 4.76/1.42 | = v0 & ( ~ (v0 = 0) | v1 = 0))
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 100, all_8_5, simplifying with (15) gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (20) sorted(all_8_5) = 0
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | DELTA: instantiating (19) with fresh symbols all_16_0, all_16_1 gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (21) sorted(all_8_4) = all_16_0 & sorted(all_8_5) = all_16_1 & ( ~
% 4.76/1.42 | (all_16_1 = 0) | all_16_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | ALPHA: (21) implies:
% 4.76/1.42 | (22) sorted(all_8_5) = all_16_1
% 4.76/1.42 | (23) sorted(all_8_4) = all_16_0
% 4.76/1.42 | (24) ~ (all_16_1 = 0) | all_16_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | DELTA: instantiating (18) with fresh symbols all_18_0, all_18_1 gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (25) sorted(all_8_3) = all_18_0 & sorted(all_8_4) = all_18_1 & ( ~
% 4.76/1.42 | (all_18_1 = 0) | all_18_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | ALPHA: (25) implies:
% 4.76/1.42 | (26) sorted(all_8_4) = all_18_1
% 4.76/1.42 | (27) sorted(all_8_3) = all_18_0
% 4.76/1.42 | (28) ~ (all_18_1 = 0) | all_18_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | DELTA: instantiating (17) with fresh symbols all_20_0, all_20_1 gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (29) sorted(all_8_2) = all_20_0 & sorted(all_8_3) = all_20_1 & ( ~
% 4.76/1.42 | (all_20_1 = 0) | all_20_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | ALPHA: (29) implies:
% 4.76/1.42 | (30) sorted(all_8_3) = all_20_1
% 4.76/1.42 | (31) sorted(all_8_2) = all_20_0
% 4.76/1.42 | (32) ~ (all_20_1 = 0) | all_20_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | DELTA: instantiating (16) with fresh symbols all_22_0, all_22_1 gives:
% 4.76/1.42 | (33) sorted(all_8_1) = all_22_0 & sorted(all_8_2) = all_22_1 & ( ~
% 4.76/1.42 | (all_22_1 = 0) | all_22_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.42 | ALPHA: (33) implies:
% 4.76/1.42 | (34) sorted(all_8_2) = all_22_1
% 4.76/1.42 | (35) sorted(all_8_1) = all_22_0
% 4.76/1.42 | (36) ~ (all_22_1 = 0) | all_22_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.42 |
% 4.76/1.43 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with 0, all_16_1, all_8_5, simplifying with
% 4.76/1.43 | (20), (22) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | (37) all_16_1 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_16_0, all_18_1, all_8_4, simplifying
% 4.76/1.43 | with (23), (26) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | (38) all_18_1 = all_16_0
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_18_0, all_20_1, all_8_3, simplifying
% 4.76/1.43 | with (27), (30) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | (39) all_20_1 = all_18_0
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_20_0, all_22_1, all_8_2, simplifying
% 4.76/1.43 | with (31), (34) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | (40) all_22_1 = all_20_0
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with all_8_0, all_22_0, all_8_1, simplifying
% 4.76/1.43 | with (10), (35) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | (41) all_22_0 = all_8_0
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | BETA: splitting (24) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 | Case 1:
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | (42) ~ (all_16_1 = 0)
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | REDUCE: (37), (42) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | (43) $false
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | CLOSE: (43) is inconsistent.
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | Case 2:
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | (44) all_16_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | COMBINE_EQS: (38), (44) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | (45) all_18_1 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | BETA: splitting (28) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | Case 1:
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | (46) ~ (all_18_1 = 0)
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | REDUCE: (45), (46) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | (47) $false
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | CLOSE: (47) is inconsistent.
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | Case 2:
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | (48) all_18_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | COMBINE_EQS: (39), (48) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | (49) all_20_1 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | BETA: splitting (36) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | Case 1:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | (50) ~ (all_22_1 = 0)
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | REDUCE: (40), (50) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | (51) ~ (all_20_0 = 0)
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | BETA: splitting (32) gives:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | Case 1:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | (52) ~ (all_20_1 = 0)
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | REDUCE: (49), (52) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | (53) $false
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | CLOSE: (53) is inconsistent.
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | Case 2:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | (54) all_20_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | REDUCE: (51), (54) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | (55) $false
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | | CLOSE: (55) is inconsistent.
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | End of split
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | Case 2:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | (56) all_22_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | COMBINE_EQS: (41), (56) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | (57) all_8_0 = 0
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | REDUCE: (6), (57) imply:
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | (58) $false
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | | CLOSE: (58) is inconsistent.
% 4.76/1.43 | | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | | End of split
% 4.76/1.43 | | |
% 4.76/1.43 | | End of split
% 4.76/1.43 | |
% 4.76/1.43 | End of split
% 4.76/1.43 |
% 4.76/1.43 End of proof
% 4.76/1.43 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.76/1.43
% 4.76/1.43 809ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------