TSTP Solution File: DAT010_1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : DAT010_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 : n022.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 22:18:52 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 4.62s 1.40s
% Output   : Proof 5.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12  % Problem  : DAT010_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 : n022.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 14:42:11 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.62  ________       _____
% 0.20/0.62  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.62  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.20/0.62  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.20/0.62  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.62  
% 0.20/0.62  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.62  (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.62  
% 0.20/0.62  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.62  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.62                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.62  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.62  
% 0.20/0.62  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.62  
% 0.20/0.62  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.63  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.64  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 1.91/1.02  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 1.91/1.02  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.58/1.06  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.58/1.06  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.58/1.06  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.58/1.06  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.58/1.08  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.17  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.10/1.17  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.58/1.18  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.58/1.18  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.58/1.18  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 3.58/1.19  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 3.58/1.21  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 4: Found proof (size 34)
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 3: proved (750ms)
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 4: proved (749ms)
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 1: stopped
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 6: stopped
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 2: stopped
% 4.62/1.39  Prover 0: proved (758ms)
% 4.62/1.40  Prover 5: stopped
% 4.62/1.40  
% 4.62/1.40  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.62/1.40  
% 4.62/1.40  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.62/1.41  Assumptions after simplification:
% 4.62/1.41  ---------------------------------
% 4.62/1.41  
% 4.62/1.41    (ax1)
% 5.26/1.43     ! [v0: array] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: int] :  ! [v3: array] : ( ~ (write(v0,
% 5.26/1.43          v1, v2) = v3) |  ~ array(v0) | read(v3, v1) = v2)
% 5.26/1.43  
% 5.26/1.43    (ax2)
% 5.26/1.43     ! [v0: array] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: int] :  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: array] :
% 5.26/1.43     ! [v5: int] : (v2 = v1 |  ~ (write(v0, v1, v3) = v4) |  ~ (read(v4, v2) = v5)
% 5.26/1.43      |  ~ array(v0) | read(v0, v2) = v5)
% 5.26/1.43  
% 5.26/1.43    (co1)
% 5.26/1.44     ? [v0: array] :  ? [v1: array] :  ? [v2: array] :  ? [v3: array] :  ? [v4:
% 5.26/1.44      array] :  ? [v5: int] :  ? [v6: int] : ($lesseq(100, v6) & write(v4, 4, 44)
% 5.26/1.44      = v0 & write(v3, 5, 55) = v4 & write(v2, 4, 444) = v3 & write(v1, 3, 33) =
% 5.26/1.44      v2 & read(v0, v5) = v6 & array(v4) & array(v3) & array(v2) & array(v1) &
% 5.26/1.44      array(v0) &  ! [v7: int] :  ! [v8: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(100, v8)) |  ~
% 5.26/1.44        (read(v1, v7) = v8)))
% 5.26/1.44  
% 5.26/1.44    (function-axioms)
% 5.26/1.44     ! [v0: array] :  ! [v1: array] :  ! [v2: int] :  ! [v3: int] :  ! [v4: array]
% 5.26/1.44    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (write(v4, v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (write(v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  !
% 5.26/1.44    [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: int] :  ! [v3: array] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 5.26/1.44      (read(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (read(v3, v2) = v0))
% 5.26/1.44  
% 5.26/1.44  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 5.26/1.44  ---------------------------------
% 5.26/1.44  
% 5.26/1.44  Begin of proof
% 5.26/1.44  | 
% 5.26/1.44  | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 5.26/1.44  |   (1)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] :  ! [v2: int] :  ! [v3: array] : (v1 = v0
% 5.26/1.44  |          |  ~ (read(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (read(v3, v2) = v0))
% 5.26/1.44  | 
% 5.26/1.45  | DELTA: instantiating (co1) with fresh symbols all_7_0, all_7_1, all_7_2,
% 5.26/1.45  |        all_7_3, all_7_4, all_7_5, all_7_6 gives:
% 5.26/1.45  |   (2)  $lesseq(100, all_7_0) & write(all_7_2, 4, 44) = all_7_6 &
% 5.26/1.45  |        write(all_7_3, 5, 55) = all_7_2 & write(all_7_4, 4, 444) = all_7_3 &
% 5.26/1.45  |        write(all_7_5, 3, 33) = all_7_4 & read(all_7_6, all_7_1) = all_7_0 &
% 5.26/1.45  |        array(all_7_2) & array(all_7_3) & array(all_7_4) & array(all_7_5) &
% 5.26/1.45  |        array(all_7_6) &  ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(100, v1)) |
% 5.26/1.45  |           ~ (read(all_7_5, v0) = v1))
% 5.26/1.45  | 
% 5.26/1.45  | ALPHA: (2) implies:
% 5.26/1.45  |   (3)  $lesseq(100, all_7_0)
% 5.26/1.45  |   (4)  array(all_7_5)
% 5.26/1.45  |   (5)  array(all_7_4)
% 5.26/1.45  |   (6)  array(all_7_3)
% 5.26/1.45  |   (7)  array(all_7_2)
% 5.26/1.45  |   (8)  read(all_7_6, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.45  |   (9)  write(all_7_5, 3, 33) = all_7_4
% 5.26/1.45  |   (10)  write(all_7_4, 4, 444) = all_7_3
% 5.26/1.45  |   (11)  write(all_7_3, 5, 55) = all_7_2
% 5.26/1.45  |   (12)  write(all_7_2, 4, 44) = all_7_6
% 5.26/1.45  |   (13)   ! [v0: int] :  ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(100, v1)) |  ~
% 5.26/1.45  |           (read(all_7_5, v0) = v1))
% 5.26/1.45  | 
% 5.26/1.45  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_5, 3, 33, all_7_4, simplifying
% 5.26/1.45  |              with (4), (9) gives:
% 5.26/1.45  |   (14)  read(all_7_4, 3) = 33
% 5.26/1.45  | 
% 5.26/1.46  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_3, 5, 55, all_7_2, simplifying
% 5.26/1.46  |              with (6), (11) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  |   (15)  read(all_7_2, 5) = 55
% 5.26/1.46  | 
% 5.26/1.46  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_2, 4, all_7_1, 44, all_7_6,
% 5.26/1.46  |              all_7_0, simplifying with (7), (8), (12) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  |   (16)  all_7_1 = 4 | read(all_7_2, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | 
% 5.26/1.46  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax1) with all_7_2, 4, 44, all_7_6, simplifying
% 5.26/1.46  |              with (7), (12) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  |   (17)  read(all_7_6, 4) = 44
% 5.26/1.46  | 
% 5.26/1.46  | BETA: splitting (16) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | 
% 5.26/1.46  | Case 1:
% 5.26/1.46  | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | |   (18)  read(all_7_2, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_3, 5, all_7_1, 55, all_7_2,
% 5.26/1.46  | |              all_7_0, simplifying with (6), (11), (18) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | |   (19)  all_7_1 = 5 | read(all_7_3, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | BETA: splitting (19) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | Case 1:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | |   (20)  read(all_7_3, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_4, 4, all_7_1, 444, all_7_3,
% 5.26/1.46  | | |              all_7_0, simplifying with (5), (10), (20) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | |   (21)  all_7_1 = 4 | read(all_7_4, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | BETA: splitting (21) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | Case 1:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | |   (22)  read(all_7_4, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax2) with all_7_5, 3, all_7_1, 33, all_7_4,
% 5.26/1.46  | | | |              all_7_0, simplifying with (4), (9), (22) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | |   (23)  all_7_1 = 3 | read(all_7_5, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | BETA: splitting (23) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | Case 1:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | |   (24)  read(all_7_5, all_7_1) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (13) with all_7_1, all_7_0, simplifying
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | |              with (24) gives:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | |   (25)  $lesseq(all_7_0, 99)
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | COMBINE_INEQS: (3), (25) imply:
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | |   (26)  $false
% 5.26/1.46  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | CLOSE: (26) is inconsistent.
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | Case 2:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | |   (27)  all_7_1 = 3
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | REDUCE: (22), (27) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | |   (28)  read(all_7_4, 3) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 33, all_7_0, 3, all_7_4,
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | |              simplifying with (14), (28) gives:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | |   (29)  all_7_0 = 33
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | REDUCE: (3), (29) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | |   (30)  $false
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | CLOSE: (30) is inconsistent.
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | End of split
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | Case 2:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | |   (31)  all_7_1 = 4
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | REDUCE: (8), (31) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | |   (32)  read(all_7_6, 4) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 44, all_7_0, 4, all_7_6, simplifying
% 5.26/1.47  | | | |              with (17), (32) gives:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | |   (33)  all_7_0 = 44
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | REDUCE: (3), (33) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | |   (34)  $false
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | CLOSE: (34) is inconsistent.
% 5.26/1.47  | | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | End of split
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | Case 2:
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | |   (35)  all_7_1 = 5
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | REDUCE: (18), (35) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | |   (36)  read(all_7_2, 5) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 55, all_7_0, 5, all_7_2, simplifying
% 5.26/1.47  | | |              with (15), (36) gives:
% 5.26/1.47  | | |   (37)  all_7_0 = 55
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | REDUCE: (3), (37) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | | |   (38)  $false
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | | CLOSE: (38) is inconsistent.
% 5.26/1.47  | | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | End of split
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | Case 2:
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | |   (39)  all_7_1 = 4
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | REDUCE: (8), (39) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | |   (40)  read(all_7_6, 4) = all_7_0
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 44, all_7_0, 4, all_7_6, simplifying
% 5.26/1.47  | |              with (17), (40) gives:
% 5.26/1.47  | |   (41)  all_7_0 = 44
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | REDUCE: (3), (41) imply:
% 5.26/1.47  | |   (42)  $false
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | | CLOSE: (42) is inconsistent.
% 5.26/1.47  | | 
% 5.26/1.47  | End of split
% 5.26/1.47  | 
% 5.26/1.47  End of proof
% 5.26/1.47  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 5.26/1.47  
% 5.26/1.47  855ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------