TSTP Solution File: GEO185+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : GEO185+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n010.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 23:21:59 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 5.50s 1.53s
% Output : Proof 6.99s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.05/0.12 % Problem : GEO185+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.05/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n010.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 : Tue Aug 29 23:38:48 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.57/0.66 ________ _____
% 0.57/0.66 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.57/0.66 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.57/0.66 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.57/0.66 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.57/0.66
% 0.57/0.66 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.57/0.66 (2023-06-19)
% 0.57/0.66
% 0.57/0.66 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.57/0.66 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.57/0.66 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.57/0.66 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.57/0.66
% 0.57/0.66 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.57/0.66
% 0.57/0.66 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.73/0.68 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.73/0.69 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.46/1.07 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.08 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.11 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.11 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.11 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.11 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.46/1.11 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 4.22/1.33 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 4.48/1.33 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 4.48/1.34 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.48/1.35 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.48/1.38 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.50/1.53 Prover 3: proved (833ms)
% 5.50/1.53
% 5.50/1.53 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 5.50/1.53
% 5.50/1.53 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 6: stopped
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 5: stopped
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 2: stopped
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 5.50/1.54 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.21/1.57 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 6.21/1.59 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.21/1.59 Prover 0: stopped
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 1: Found proof (size 28)
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 1: proved (913ms)
% 6.38/1.60 Prover 4: stopped
% 6.38/1.61 Prover 7: stopped
% 6.38/1.62 Prover 10: stopped
% 6.38/1.62 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 6.61/1.64 Prover 13: stopped
% 6.61/1.65 Prover 11: stopped
% 6.61/1.66 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.61/1.67 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.61/1.67 Prover 8: stopped
% 6.61/1.67
% 6.61/1.67 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.61/1.67
% 6.61/1.68 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 6.61/1.68 Assumptions after simplification:
% 6.61/1.68 ---------------------------------
% 6.61/1.68
% 6.61/1.68 (ceq1)
% 6.99/1.71 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: int] : (v3 = 0 | ~
% 6.99/1.71 (apart_point_and_line(v0, v1) = 0) | ~ (distinct_points(v0, v2) = v3) | ~
% 6.99/1.71 $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) = 0)
% 6.99/1.71
% 6.99/1.71 (ci3)
% 6.99/1.71 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (intersection_point(v0, v1) =
% 6.99/1.71 v2) | ~ (apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) = 0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ?
% 6.99/1.71 [v3: int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & convergent_lines(v0, v1) = v3))
% 6.99/1.71
% 6.99/1.71 (ci4)
% 6.99/1.71 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (intersection_point(v0, v1) =
% 6.99/1.71 v2) | ~ (apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) = 0) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ?
% 6.99/1.71 [v3: int] : ( ~ (v3 = 0) & convergent_lines(v0, v1) = v3))
% 6.99/1.71
% 6.99/1.71 (con)
% 6.99/1.72 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5:
% 6.99/1.72 int] : ? [v6: any] : ? [v7: any] : ( ~ (v5 = 0) & intersection_point(v2,
% 6.99/1.72 v3) = v4 & apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) = v7 & apart_point_and_line(v0,
% 6.99/1.72 v2) = v6 & convergent_lines(v2, v3) = 0 & distinct_points(v0, v4) = v5 &
% 6.99/1.72 distinct_points(v0, v1) = 0 & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) &
% 6.99/1.72 (v7 = 0 | v6 = 0))
% 6.99/1.72
% 6.99/1.72 (function-axioms)
% 6.99/1.72 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 6.99/1.72 (intersection_point(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (intersection_point(v3, v2) = v0)) &
% 6.99/1.72 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 6.99/1.72 (line_connecting(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (line_connecting(v3, v2) = v0)) & !
% 6.99/1.72 [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3:
% 6.99/1.72 $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (apart_point_and_line(v3, v2) = v1) | ~
% 6.99/1.72 (apart_point_and_line(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1:
% 6.99/1.72 MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 6.99/1.72 (convergent_lines(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (convergent_lines(v3, v2) = v0)) & !
% 6.99/1.72 [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3:
% 6.99/1.72 $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (distinct_lines(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (distinct_lines(v3,
% 6.99/1.72 v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :
% 6.99/1.72 ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (distinct_points(v3, v2) = v1) | ~
% 6.99/1.72 (distinct_points(v3, v2) = v0))
% 6.99/1.72
% 6.99/1.72 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 6.99/1.72 --------------------------------------------
% 6.99/1.72 apart1, apart2, apart3, apart4, apart5, ax6, ceq2, ceq3, ci1, ci2, cu1
% 6.99/1.72
% 6.99/1.72 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 6.99/1.72 ---------------------------------
% 6.99/1.72
% 6.99/1.72 Begin of proof
% 6.99/1.72 |
% 6.99/1.72 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 6.99/1.73 | (1) ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] : ! [v2: $i] :
% 6.99/1.73 | ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (convergent_lines(v3, v2) = v1) | ~
% 6.99/1.73 | (convergent_lines(v3, v2) = v0))
% 6.99/1.73 |
% 6.99/1.73 | DELTA: instantiating (con) with fresh symbols all_17_0, all_17_1, all_17_2,
% 6.99/1.73 | all_17_3, all_17_4, all_17_5, all_17_6, all_17_7 gives:
% 6.99/1.73 | (2) ~ (all_17_2 = 0) & intersection_point(all_17_5, all_17_4) = all_17_3 &
% 6.99/1.73 | apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_4) = all_17_0 &
% 6.99/1.73 | apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_5) = all_17_1 &
% 6.99/1.73 | convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) = 0 & distinct_points(all_17_7,
% 6.99/1.73 | all_17_3) = all_17_2 & distinct_points(all_17_7, all_17_6) = 0 &
% 6.99/1.73 | $i(all_17_3) & $i(all_17_4) & $i(all_17_5) & $i(all_17_6) &
% 6.99/1.73 | $i(all_17_7) & (all_17_0 = 0 | all_17_1 = 0)
% 6.99/1.73 |
% 6.99/1.73 | ALPHA: (2) implies:
% 6.99/1.73 | (3) ~ (all_17_2 = 0)
% 6.99/1.73 | (4) $i(all_17_7)
% 6.99/1.73 | (5) $i(all_17_5)
% 6.99/1.73 | (6) $i(all_17_4)
% 6.99/1.73 | (7) $i(all_17_3)
% 6.99/1.73 | (8) distinct_points(all_17_7, all_17_3) = all_17_2
% 6.99/1.73 | (9) convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) = 0
% 6.99/1.73 | (10) apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_5) = all_17_1
% 6.99/1.73 | (11) apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_4) = all_17_0
% 6.99/1.73 | (12) intersection_point(all_17_5, all_17_4) = all_17_3
% 6.99/1.73 | (13) all_17_0 = 0 | all_17_1 = 0
% 6.99/1.73 |
% 6.99/1.73 | BETA: splitting (13) gives:
% 6.99/1.73 |
% 6.99/1.73 | Case 1:
% 6.99/1.73 | |
% 6.99/1.73 | | (14) all_17_0 = 0
% 6.99/1.73 | |
% 6.99/1.73 | | REDUCE: (11), (14) imply:
% 6.99/1.73 | | (15) apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_4) = 0
% 6.99/1.73 | |
% 6.99/1.73 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ceq1) with all_17_7, all_17_4, all_17_3,
% 6.99/1.73 | | all_17_2, simplifying with (4), (6), (7), (8), (15) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | (16) all_17_2 = 0 | apart_point_and_line(all_17_3, all_17_4) = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | BETA: splitting (16) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | Case 1:
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (17) apart_point_and_line(all_17_3, all_17_4) = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ci4) with all_17_5, all_17_4, all_17_3,
% 6.99/1.74 | | | simplifying with (5), (6), (12), (17) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (18) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4)
% 6.99/1.74 | | | = v0)
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | DELTA: instantiating (18) with fresh symbol all_42_0 gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (19) ~ (all_42_0 = 0) & convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) =
% 6.99/1.74 | | | all_42_0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | ALPHA: (19) implies:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (20) ~ (all_42_0 = 0)
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (21) convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) = all_42_0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 0, all_42_0, all_17_4, all_17_5,
% 6.99/1.74 | | | simplifying with (9), (21) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (22) all_42_0 = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | REDUCE: (20), (22) imply:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (23) $false
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent.
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | Case 2:
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (24) all_17_2 = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | REDUCE: (3), (24) imply:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (25) $false
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent.
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | End of split
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | Case 2:
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | (26) all_17_1 = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | REDUCE: (10), (26) imply:
% 6.99/1.74 | | (27) apart_point_and_line(all_17_7, all_17_5) = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ceq1) with all_17_7, all_17_5, all_17_3,
% 6.99/1.74 | | all_17_2, simplifying with (4), (5), (7), (8), (27) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | (28) all_17_2 = 0 | apart_point_and_line(all_17_3, all_17_5) = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | BETA: splitting (28) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | Case 1:
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (29) apart_point_and_line(all_17_3, all_17_5) = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ci3) with all_17_5, all_17_4, all_17_3,
% 6.99/1.74 | | | simplifying with (5), (6), (12), (29) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (30) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4)
% 6.99/1.74 | | | = v0)
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | DELTA: instantiating (30) with fresh symbol all_42_0 gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (31) ~ (all_42_0 = 0) & convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) =
% 6.99/1.74 | | | all_42_0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | ALPHA: (31) implies:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (32) ~ (all_42_0 = 0)
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (33) convergent_lines(all_17_5, all_17_4) = all_42_0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with 0, all_42_0, all_17_4, all_17_5,
% 6.99/1.74 | | | simplifying with (9), (33) gives:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (34) all_42_0 = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | REDUCE: (32), (34) imply:
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (35) $false
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | CLOSE: (35) is inconsistent.
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | Case 2:
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | (36) all_17_2 = 0
% 6.99/1.74 | | |
% 6.99/1.74 | | | REDUCE: (3), (36) imply:
% 6.99/1.75 | | | (37) $false
% 6.99/1.75 | | |
% 6.99/1.75 | | | CLOSE: (37) is inconsistent.
% 6.99/1.75 | | |
% 6.99/1.75 | | End of split
% 6.99/1.75 | |
% 6.99/1.75 | End of split
% 6.99/1.75 |
% 6.99/1.75 End of proof
% 6.99/1.75 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 6.99/1.75
% 6.99/1.75 1083ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------