TSTP Solution File: GEO196+2 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : GEO196+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n002.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 23:22:09 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 7.49s 2.00s
% Output : Proof 8.87s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.14 % Problem : GEO196+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Tue Aug 29 21:39:20 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.61 ________ _____
% 0.21/0.61 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 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 ...
% 0.21/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.21/0.66 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.05/1.09 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.05/1.09 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.59/1.14 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.59/1.14 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.59/1.14 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.59/1.14 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.59/1.14 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 4.31/1.45 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 4.31/1.45 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 4.31/1.48 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.31/1.48 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.31/1.50 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.45/1.64 Prover 3: gave up
% 5.45/1.66 Prover 6: gave up
% 5.45/1.66 Prover 1: gave up
% 5.45/1.66 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 5.45/1.66 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 5.45/1.66 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 5.45/1.67 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889
% 5.45/1.67 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.08/1.71 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.08/1.72 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.08/1.72 Prover 9: Preprocessing ...
% 6.08/1.78 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.08/1.79 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.63/1.84 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.63/1.88 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.63/1.95 Prover 8: gave up
% 6.63/1.96 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.63/1.96 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 7.49/2.00 Prover 2: proved (1344ms)
% 7.49/2.00
% 7.49/2.00 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 7.49/2.00
% 7.49/2.01 Prover 0: stopped
% 7.49/2.02 Prover 5: stopped
% 7.49/2.02 Prover 9: stopped
% 7.49/2.03 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 7.49/2.03 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 7.49/2.03 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 7.49/2.03 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683
% 7.49/2.03 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085
% 7.49/2.06 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.49/2.06 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.49/2.07 Prover 16: Preprocessing ...
% 7.49/2.07 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 7.49/2.08 Prover 19: Preprocessing ...
% 8.20/2.08 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 8.33/2.11 Prover 7: Found proof (size 25)
% 8.33/2.11 Prover 7: proved (450ms)
% 8.33/2.11 Prover 4: stopped
% 8.41/2.12 Prover 16: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.41/2.12 Prover 10: stopped
% 8.41/2.12 Prover 13: stopped
% 8.41/2.12 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.41/2.13 Prover 11: stopped
% 8.41/2.13 Prover 16: stopped
% 8.41/2.15 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.41/2.15 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.41/2.16 Prover 19: stopped
% 8.41/2.16
% 8.41/2.16 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 8.41/2.16
% 8.41/2.16 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 8.41/2.17 Assumptions after simplification:
% 8.41/2.17 ---------------------------------
% 8.41/2.17
% 8.41/2.17 (apart1)
% 8.41/2.17 ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_points(v0, v0))
% 8.41/2.17
% 8.41/2.17 (ceq3)
% 8.41/2.17 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0,
% 8.41/2.17 v1) | distinct_lines(v0, v1))
% 8.41/2.17
% 8.41/2.17 (con)
% 8.87/2.21 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5:
% 8.87/2.21 $i] : (intersection_point(v2, v3) = v5 & intersection_point(v0, v1) = v4 &
% 8.87/2.21 $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & convergent_lines(v2,
% 8.87/2.21 v3) & convergent_lines(v0, v1) & ~ apart_point_and_line(v4, v3) & ~
% 8.87/2.21 apart_point_and_line(v4, v2) & (apart_point_and_line(v5, v1) |
% 8.87/2.22 apart_point_and_line(v5, v0)))
% 8.87/2.22
% 8.87/2.22 (con2)
% 8.87/2.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 8.87/2.22 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 8.87/2.22 apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.22 distinct_points(v2, v3)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3:
% 8.87/2.22 $i] : ( ~ (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~
% 8.87/2.22 $i(v0) | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.22 distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 8.87/2.22
% 8.87/2.22 (cu1)
% 8.87/2.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) | ~ $i(v2)
% 8.87/2.22 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_lines(v2, v3) | ~ distinct_points(v0,
% 8.87/2.22 v1) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v2) |
% 8.87/2.22 apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v0, v2))
% 8.87/2.22
% 8.87/2.22 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 8.87/2.22 --------------------------------------------
% 8.87/2.22 apart2, apart3, apart4, apart5, apart6, ceq1, ceq2, con1
% 8.87/2.22
% 8.87/2.22 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 8.87/2.22 ---------------------------------
% 8.87/2.22
% 8.87/2.22 Begin of proof
% 8.87/2.22 |
% 8.87/2.22 | ALPHA: (con2) implies:
% 8.87/2.23 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 8.87/2.23 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 8.87/2.23 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.23 | distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 8.87/2.23 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 8.87/2.23 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 8.87/2.23 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.23 | distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 8.87/2.23 |
% 8.87/2.23 | DELTA: instantiating (con) with fresh symbols all_20_0, all_20_1, all_20_2,
% 8.87/2.23 | all_20_3, all_20_4, all_20_5 gives:
% 8.87/2.23 | (3) intersection_point(all_20_3, all_20_2) = all_20_0 &
% 8.87/2.23 | intersection_point(all_20_5, all_20_4) = all_20_1 & $i(all_20_0) &
% 8.87/2.23 | $i(all_20_1) & $i(all_20_2) & $i(all_20_3) & $i(all_20_4) &
% 8.87/2.23 | $i(all_20_5) & convergent_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2) &
% 8.87/2.23 | convergent_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4) & ~
% 8.87/2.23 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2) & ~
% 8.87/2.23 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3) &
% 8.87/2.23 | (apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) |
% 8.87/2.23 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5))
% 8.87/2.23 |
% 8.87/2.23 | ALPHA: (3) implies:
% 8.87/2.23 | (4) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.23 | (5) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.23 | (6) convergent_lines(all_20_5, all_20_4)
% 8.87/2.23 | (7) convergent_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.23 | (8) $i(all_20_5)
% 8.87/2.23 | (9) $i(all_20_4)
% 8.87/2.23 | (10) $i(all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.23 | (11) $i(all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.23 | (12) $i(all_20_1)
% 8.87/2.23 | (13) $i(all_20_0)
% 8.87/2.23 | (14) intersection_point(all_20_5, all_20_4) = all_20_1
% 8.87/2.23 | (15) intersection_point(all_20_3, all_20_2) = all_20_0
% 8.87/2.23 | (16) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) |
% 8.87/2.23 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5)
% 8.87/2.23 |
% 8.87/2.24 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ceq3) with all_20_3, all_20_2, simplifying with
% 8.87/2.24 | (7), (10), (11) gives:
% 8.87/2.24 | (17) distinct_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.24 |
% 8.87/2.24 | BETA: splitting (16) gives:
% 8.87/2.24 |
% 8.87/2.24 | Case 1:
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | (18) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4)
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_20_5, all_20_4, all_20_0, all_20_1,
% 8.87/2.24 | | simplifying with (6), (8), (9), (13), (14), (18) gives:
% 8.87/2.24 | | (19) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_1)
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (2), (4), (5), (7), (10), (11), (12), (13), (15), (17),
% 8.87/2.24 | | (19), (apart1), (cu1) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1.
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | Case 2:
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | (20) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_5)
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_20_5, all_20_4, all_20_0, all_20_1,
% 8.87/2.24 | | simplifying with (6), (8), (9), (13), (14), (20) gives:
% 8.87/2.24 | | (21) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_1)
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | | REF_CLOSE: (1), (2), (4), (5), (7), (10), (11), (12), (13), (15), (17),
% 8.87/2.24 | | (21), (apart1), (cu1) are inconsistent by sub-proof #1.
% 8.87/2.24 | |
% 8.87/2.24 | End of split
% 8.87/2.24 |
% 8.87/2.24 End of proof
% 8.87/2.24
% 8.87/2.24 Sub-proof #1 shows that the following formulas are inconsistent:
% 8.87/2.24 ----------------------------------------------------------------
% 8.87/2.24 (1) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.24 (2) $i(all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.24 (3) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.24 (4) convergent_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.24 (5) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 8.87/2.24 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) |
% 8.87/2.24 ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.24 distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 8.87/2.24 (6) distinct_lines(all_20_3, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.25 (7) $i(all_20_1)
% 8.87/2.25 (8) $i(all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.25 (9) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_points(v0, v0))
% 8.87/2.25 (10) intersection_point(all_20_3, all_20_2) = all_20_0
% 8.87/2.25 (11) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_1)
% 8.87/2.25 (12) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 8.87/2.25 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 8.87/2.25 | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 8.87/2.25 distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 8.87/2.25 (13) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) | ~
% 8.87/2.25 $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_lines(v2, v3) | ~
% 8.87/2.25 distinct_points(v0, v1) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v3) |
% 8.87/2.25 apart_point_and_line(v1, v2) | apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) |
% 8.87/2.25 apart_point_and_line(v0, v2))
% 8.87/2.25 (14) $i(all_20_0)
% 8.87/2.25
% 8.87/2.25 Begin of proof
% 8.87/2.25 |
% 8.87/2.25 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (13) with all_20_0, all_20_1, all_20_3, all_20_2,
% 8.87/2.25 | simplifying with (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (11), (14) gives:
% 8.87/2.25 | (15) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_2) |
% 8.87/2.25 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.25 |
% 8.87/2.25 | BETA: splitting (15) gives:
% 8.87/2.25 |
% 8.87/2.25 | Case 1:
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | (16) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_2)
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with all_20_3, all_20_2, all_20_0, all_20_0,
% 8.87/2.25 | | simplifying with (2), (4), (8), (10), (14), (16) gives:
% 8.87/2.25 | | (17) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_0)
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (9) with all_20_0, simplifying with (14), (17)
% 8.87/2.25 | | gives:
% 8.87/2.25 | | (18) $false
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent.
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | Case 2:
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | (19) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_3)
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (12) with all_20_3, all_20_2, all_20_0, all_20_0,
% 8.87/2.25 | | simplifying with (2), (4), (8), (10), (14), (19) gives:
% 8.87/2.25 | | (20) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_0)
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (9) with all_20_0, simplifying with (14), (20)
% 8.87/2.25 | | gives:
% 8.87/2.25 | | (21) $false
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | | CLOSE: (21) is inconsistent.
% 8.87/2.25 | |
% 8.87/2.25 | End of split
% 8.87/2.25 |
% 8.87/2.25 End of proof
% 8.87/2.25 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 8.87/2.25
% 8.87/2.25 1635ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------