TSTP Solution File: DAT008_1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : DAT008_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 : n011.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 22:18:51 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 5.79s 1.61s
% Output : Proof 7.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : DAT008_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v5.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n011.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 : Thu Aug 24 14:39:22 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.64 ________ _____
% 0.20/0.64 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.64 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.20/0.64 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.20/0.64 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.64 (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.64 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.64 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.64 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.66 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.68 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.64/1.18 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.64/1.18 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 3.03/1.24 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.03/1.24 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 3.03/1.24 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.03/1.24 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 3.03/1.24 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 3.36/1.40 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.36/1.40 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.36/1.40 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.36/1.40 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 3.36/1.41 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 3.36/1.41 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.36/1.42 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 5.79/1.61 Prover 3: proved (939ms)
% 5.79/1.61
% 5.79/1.61 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 5.79/1.61
% 5.79/1.62 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 5.79/1.62 Prover 6: stopped
% 5.79/1.62 Prover 2: stopped
% 5.79/1.62 Prover 0: stopped
% 5.79/1.62 Prover 5: stopped
% 5.79/1.63 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 5.79/1.63 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 5.79/1.63 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 5.79/1.63 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 5.79/1.65 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 5.79/1.65 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 6.14/1.66 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.14/1.67 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 6.14/1.68 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.14/1.70 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.14/1.70 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.14/1.70 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.14/1.72 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.14/1.72 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.14/1.73 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 1: Found proof (size 28)
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 1: proved (1073ms)
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 11: stopped
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 4: stopped
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 13: stopped
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 8: stopped
% 6.14/1.74 Prover 10: stopped
% 6.78/1.75 Prover 7: stopped
% 6.78/1.75
% 6.78/1.75 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.78/1.75
% 6.78/1.76 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 6.78/1.76 Assumptions after simplification:
% 6.78/1.76 ---------------------------------
% 6.78/1.76
% 6.78/1.76 (ax1)
% 6.96/1.80 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: array] : ! [v4: int] :
% 6.96/1.80 (v4 = v2 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v2) = v3) | ~ (read(v3, v1) = v4) | ~
% 6.96/1.80 array(v0))
% 6.96/1.80
% 6.96/1.80 (ax2)
% 6.96/1.81 ! [v0: array] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : ! [v3: int] : ! [v4: array] :
% 6.96/1.81 ! [v5: int] : (v2 = v1 | ~ (write(v0, v1, v3) = v4) | ~ (read(v4, v2) = v5)
% 6.96/1.81 | ~ array(v0) | read(v0, v2) = v5)
% 6.96/1.81
% 6.96/1.81 (co1)
% 6.96/1.81 ? [v0: array] : ? [v1: array] : ? [v2: array] : (write(v2, 7, 9) = v0 &
% 6.96/1.81 write(v1, 3, 5) = v2 & array(v2) & array(v1) & array(v0) & ! [v3: int] : !
% 6.96/1.81 [v4: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v4, v3)) | ~ (read(v1, v3) = v4)) & ? [v3: int] :
% 6.96/1.81 ? [v4: int] : ($lesseq(v4, v3) & read(v0, v3) = v4))
% 6.96/1.81
% 6.96/1.81 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 6.96/1.81 ---------------------------------
% 6.96/1.81
% 6.96/1.81 Begin of proof
% 6.96/1.81 |
% 6.96/1.82 | DELTA: instantiating (co1) with fresh symbols all_7_0, all_7_1, all_7_2 gives:
% 6.96/1.82 | (1) write(all_7_0, 7, 9) = all_7_2 & write(all_7_1, 3, 5) = all_7_0 &
% 6.96/1.82 | array(all_7_0) & array(all_7_1) & array(all_7_2) & ! [v0: int] : !
% 6.96/1.82 | [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, v0)) | ~ (read(all_7_1, v0) = v1)) & ?
% 6.96/1.82 | [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ($lesseq(v1, v0) & read(all_7_2, v0) = v1)
% 6.96/1.82 |
% 6.96/1.82 | ALPHA: (1) implies:
% 6.96/1.82 | (2) array(all_7_1)
% 6.96/1.82 | (3) array(all_7_0)
% 6.96/1.82 | (4) write(all_7_1, 3, 5) = all_7_0
% 6.96/1.82 | (5) write(all_7_0, 7, 9) = all_7_2
% 6.96/1.83 | (6) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v1, v0)) | ~ (read(all_7_1,
% 6.96/1.83 | v0) = v1))
% 6.96/1.83 | (7) ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ($lesseq(v1, v0) & read(all_7_2, v0) =
% 6.96/1.83 | v1)
% 6.96/1.83 |
% 6.96/1.83 | DELTA: instantiating (7) with fresh symbols all_10_0, all_10_1 gives:
% 6.96/1.83 | (8) $lesseq(all_10_0, all_10_1) & read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 6.96/1.83 |
% 6.96/1.83 | ALPHA: (8) implies:
% 6.96/1.83 | (9) $lesseq(all_10_0, all_10_1)
% 6.96/1.83 | (10) read(all_7_2, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 6.96/1.83 |
% 6.96/1.83 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_0, 7, 9, all_7_2, all_10_0,
% 6.96/1.83 | simplifying with (3), (5) gives:
% 6.96/1.83 | (11) all_10_0 = 9 | ~ (read(all_7_2, 7) = all_10_0)
% 6.96/1.83 |
% 6.96/1.83 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_0, 7, all_10_1, 9, all_7_2,
% 6.96/1.83 | all_10_0, simplifying with (3), (5), (10) gives:
% 6.96/1.83 | (12) all_10_1 = 7 | read(all_7_0, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 6.96/1.83 |
% 6.96/1.83 | BETA: splitting (12) gives:
% 6.96/1.84 |
% 6.96/1.84 | Case 1:
% 6.96/1.84 | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | (13) read(all_7_0, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 7.20/1.84 | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_1, 3, 5, all_7_0, all_10_0,
% 7.20/1.84 | | simplifying with (2), (4) gives:
% 7.20/1.84 | | (14) all_10_0 = 5 | ~ (read(all_7_0, 3) = all_10_0)
% 7.20/1.84 | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_1, 3, all_10_1, 5, all_7_0,
% 7.20/1.84 | | all_10_0, simplifying with (2), (4), (13) gives:
% 7.20/1.84 | | (15) all_10_1 = 3 | read(all_7_1, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 7.20/1.84 | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | BETA: splitting (15) gives:
% 7.20/1.84 | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | Case 1:
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | | (16) read(all_7_1, all_10_1) = all_10_0
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with all_10_1, all_10_0, simplifying with
% 7.20/1.84 | | | (16) gives:
% 7.20/1.84 | | | (17) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_10_0, all_10_1))
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (9), (17) imply:
% 7.20/1.84 | | | (18) $false
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent.
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | Case 2:
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.84 | | | (19) all_10_1 = 3
% 7.20/1.84 | | |
% 7.20/1.85 | | | REDUCE: (9), (19) imply:
% 7.20/1.85 | | | (20) $lesseq(all_10_0, 3)
% 7.20/1.85 | | |
% 7.20/1.85 | | | REDUCE: (13), (19) imply:
% 7.20/1.85 | | | (21) read(all_7_0, 3) = all_10_0
% 7.20/1.85 | | |
% 7.20/1.85 | | | BETA: splitting (14) gives:
% 7.20/1.85 | | |
% 7.20/1.85 | | | Case 1:
% 7.20/1.85 | | | |
% 7.20/1.85 | | | | (22) ~ (read(all_7_0, 3) = all_10_0)
% 7.20/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | PRED_UNIFY: (21), (22) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | (23) $false
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent.
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | Case 2:
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | (24) all_10_0 = 5
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | REDUCE: (20), (24) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | (25) $false
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent.
% 7.25/1.85 | | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | End of split
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | End of split
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | Case 2:
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | (26) all_10_1 = 7
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | REDUCE: (9), (26) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | (27) $lesseq(all_10_0, 7)
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | REDUCE: (10), (26) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | (28) read(all_7_2, 7) = all_10_0
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | BETA: splitting (11) gives:
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | Case 1:
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | (29) ~ (read(all_7_2, 7) = all_10_0)
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | PRED_UNIFY: (28), (29) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | | (30) $false
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | CLOSE: (30) is inconsistent.
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | Case 2:
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | (31) all_10_0 = 9
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | REDUCE: (27), (31) imply:
% 7.25/1.85 | | | (32) $false
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | | CLOSE: (32) is inconsistent.
% 7.25/1.85 | | |
% 7.25/1.85 | | End of split
% 7.25/1.85 | |
% 7.25/1.85 | End of split
% 7.25/1.85 |
% 7.25/1.85 End of proof
% 7.25/1.85 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 7.25/1.85
% 7.25/1.85 1215ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------