TSTP Solution File: GEO118+1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : GEO118+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 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 23:21:31 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 9.88s 2.08s
% Output   : Proof 14.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.13  % Problem  : GEO118+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.11/0.14  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.35  % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.35  % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 21:13:41 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.21/0.61  ________       _____
% 0.21/0.61  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.21/0.61  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.21/0.61  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.21/0.61  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.21/0.61  
% 0.21/0.61  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.21/0.61  (2023-06-19)
% 0.21/0.61  
% 0.21/0.61  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.21/0.61  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.21/0.61                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.21/0.61  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.21/0.61  
% 0.21/0.61  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.21/0.61  
% 0.21/0.61  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.21/0.62  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.21/0.64  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 3.39/1.19  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 3.39/1.19  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.23  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.23  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.23  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.24  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.80/1.24  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 7.04/1.68  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 7.04/1.68  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 7.77/1.81  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 7.77/1.81  Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.77/1.82  Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.60/1.88  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.60/1.89  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.88/2.08  Prover 2: proved (1447ms)
% 9.88/2.08  
% 9.88/2.08  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.88/2.08  
% 9.88/2.08  Prover 6: stopped
% 9.88/2.09  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 9.88/2.09  Prover 3: stopped
% 9.88/2.10  Prover 5: stopped
% 9.88/2.10  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 9.88/2.10  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 9.88/2.10  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 10.35/2.14  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 10.70/2.16  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 10.70/2.17  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 10.70/2.18  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 10.70/2.19  Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.70/2.24  Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.38/2.26  Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.38/2.26  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.38/2.27  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 11.38/2.27  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.38/2.28  Prover 0: stopped
% 11.38/2.28  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 11.68/2.29  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.68/2.31  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.68/2.33  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.11/2.34  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 10: Found proof (size 11)
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 10: proved (325ms)
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 4: stopped
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 1: stopped
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 7: Found proof (size 11)
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 7: proved (348ms)
% 12.66/2.43  Prover 8: stopped
% 12.66/2.45  Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 12.96/2.46  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.96/2.47  Prover 13: stopped
% 13.38/2.61  Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 13.38/2.65  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 13.74/2.66  Prover 11: stopped
% 13.74/2.66  
% 13.74/2.66  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 13.74/2.66  
% 13.74/2.66  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 13.74/2.66  Assumptions after simplification:
% 13.74/2.66  ---------------------------------
% 13.74/2.66  
% 13.74/2.67    (between_c_defn)
% 13.74/2.68     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : (v3 = v1
% 13.74/2.68      |  ~ $i(v4) |  ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 13.74/2.68      inner_point(v2, v4) |  ~ end_point(v3, v4) |  ~ end_point(v1, v4) |  ~
% 13.74/2.68      part_of(v4, v0) | between_c(v0, v1, v2, v3)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : 
% 13.74/2.68    ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 13.74/2.68      between_c(v0, v1, v2, v3) |  ? [v4: $i] : ($i(v4) & inner_point(v2, v4) &
% 13.74/2.68        end_point(v3, v4) & end_point(v1, v4) & part_of(v4, v0))) &  ! [v0: $i] : 
% 13.74/2.68    ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 13.74/2.68      between_c(v0, v1, v2, v1))
% 13.74/2.68  
% 13.74/2.68    (between_o_defn)
% 13.74/2.69     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2)
% 13.74/2.69      |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ ordered_by(v0, v3, v2) |  ~ ordered_by(v0, v2,
% 13.74/2.69        v1) | between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i]
% 13.74/2.69    :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 13.74/2.69      ordered_by(v0, v2, v3) |  ~ ordered_by(v0, v1, v2) | between_o(v0, v1, v2,
% 13.74/2.69        v3)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3)
% 13.74/2.69      |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3) |
% 13.74/2.69      ordered_by(v0, v3, v2) | ordered_by(v0, v2, v3)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i]
% 13.74/2.69    :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |
% 13.74/2.69       ~ between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3) | ordered_by(v0, v3, v2) | ordered_by(v0, v1,
% 13.74/2.69        v2)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3)
% 13.74/2.69      |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3) |
% 13.74/2.69      ordered_by(v0, v2, v3) | ordered_by(v0, v2, v1)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i]
% 13.74/2.69    :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |
% 13.74/2.69       ~ between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3) | ordered_by(v0, v2, v1) | ordered_by(v0, v1,
% 13.74/2.69        v2))
% 13.74/2.69  
% 13.74/2.69    (o3)
% 13.74/2.69     ? [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : ( ~
% 13.74/2.69      $i(v4) |  ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ between_c(v4,
% 13.74/2.69        v1, v2, v3) | between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3) |  ? [v5: $i] : ($i(v5) & ( ~
% 13.74/2.69          incident_o(v5, v0) |  ~ incident_c(v5, v4)) & (incident_o(v5, v0) |
% 13.74/2.69          incident_c(v5, v4)))) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  !
% 13.74/2.69    [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ between_o(v3,
% 13.74/2.69        v0, v1, v2) |  ? [v4: $i] : ($i(v4) & between_c(v4, v0, v1, v2) &  ! [v5:
% 13.74/2.69          $i] : ( ~ $i(v5) |  ~ incident_o(v5, v3) | incident_c(v5, v4)) &  ! [v5:
% 13.74/2.69          $i] : ( ~ $i(v5) |  ~ incident_c(v5, v4) | incident_o(v5, v3))))
% 13.74/2.69  
% 13.74/2.69    (theorem_4_5)
% 13.74/2.69     ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] : ($i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) &
% 13.74/2.69      ordered_by(v0, v2, v1) & ordered_by(v0, v1, v2))
% 13.74/2.70  
% 13.74/2.70  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 13.74/2.70  --------------------------------------------
% 13.74/2.70  c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8, c9, closed_defn, end_point_defn,
% 13.74/2.70  finish_point_defn, inner_point_defn, meet_defn, o1, o2, o4, o5, o6, open_defn,
% 13.74/2.70  part_of_defn, start_point_defn, sum_defn, underlying_curve_defn
% 13.74/2.70  
% 13.74/2.70  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 13.74/2.70  ---------------------------------
% 13.74/2.70  
% 13.74/2.70  Begin of proof
% 13.74/2.70  | 
% 13.74/2.70  | ALPHA: (between_c_defn) implies:
% 13.74/2.70  |   (1)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~
% 13.74/2.70  |          $i(v0) |  ~ between_c(v0, v1, v2, v1))
% 13.74/2.70  | 
% 13.74/2.70  | ALPHA: (between_o_defn) implies:
% 13.74/2.70  |   (2)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~
% 13.74/2.70  |          $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ ordered_by(v0, v3, v2) |  ~
% 13.74/2.70  |          ordered_by(v0, v2, v1) | between_o(v0, v1, v2, v3))
% 13.74/2.70  | 
% 13.74/2.70  | ALPHA: (o3) implies:
% 13.74/2.70  |   (3)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~
% 13.74/2.70  |          $i(v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ between_o(v3, v0, v1, v2) |  ?
% 13.74/2.70  |          [v4: $i] : ($i(v4) & between_c(v4, v0, v1, v2) &  ! [v5: $i] : ( ~
% 13.74/2.70  |              $i(v5) |  ~ incident_o(v5, v3) | incident_c(v5, v4)) &  ! [v5:
% 13.74/2.70  |              $i] : ( ~ $i(v5) |  ~ incident_c(v5, v4) | incident_o(v5, v3))))
% 13.74/2.70  | 
% 13.74/2.70  | DELTA: instantiating (theorem_4_5) with fresh symbols all_28_0, all_28_1,
% 13.74/2.70  |        all_28_2 gives:
% 13.74/2.70  |   (4)  $i(all_28_0) & $i(all_28_1) & $i(all_28_2) & ordered_by(all_28_2,
% 13.74/2.70  |          all_28_0, all_28_1) & ordered_by(all_28_2, all_28_1, all_28_0)
% 13.74/2.70  | 
% 13.74/2.70  | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 13.74/2.70  |   (5)  ordered_by(all_28_2, all_28_1, all_28_0)
% 13.74/2.70  |   (6)  ordered_by(all_28_2, all_28_0, all_28_1)
% 14.13/2.70  |   (7)  $i(all_28_2)
% 14.13/2.70  |   (8)  $i(all_28_1)
% 14.13/2.70  |   (9)  $i(all_28_0)
% 14.13/2.70  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_28_2, all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1,
% 14.13/2.71  |              simplifying with (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) gives:
% 14.13/2.71  |   (10)  between_o(all_28_2, all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1)
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1, all_28_2,
% 14.13/2.71  |              simplifying with (7), (8), (9), (10) gives:
% 14.13/2.71  |   (11)   ? [v0: $i] : ($i(v0) & between_c(v0, all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1) & 
% 14.13/2.71  |           ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) |  ~ incident_o(v1, all_28_2) |
% 14.13/2.71  |             incident_c(v1, v0)) &  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) |  ~ incident_c(v1,
% 14.13/2.71  |               v0) | incident_o(v1, all_28_2)))
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | DELTA: instantiating (11) with fresh symbol all_55_0 gives:
% 14.13/2.71  |   (12)  $i(all_55_0) & between_c(all_55_0, all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1) &  !
% 14.13/2.71  |         [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ incident_o(v0, all_28_2) | incident_c(v0,
% 14.13/2.71  |             all_55_0)) &  ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ incident_c(v0,
% 14.13/2.71  |             all_55_0) | incident_o(v0, all_28_2))
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | ALPHA: (12) implies:
% 14.13/2.71  |   (13)  between_c(all_55_0, all_28_1, all_28_0, all_28_1)
% 14.13/2.71  |   (14)  $i(all_55_0)
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_55_0, all_28_1, all_28_0, simplifying
% 14.13/2.71  |              with (8), (9), (13), (14) gives:
% 14.13/2.71  |   (15)  $false
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  | CLOSE: (15) is inconsistent.
% 14.13/2.71  | 
% 14.13/2.71  End of proof
% 14.13/2.71  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 14.13/2.71  
% 14.13/2.71  2101ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------