TSTP Solution File: GEO197+2 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : GEO197+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 : n023.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 23:22:10 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 8.03s 1.82s
% Output : Proof 9.44s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : GEO197+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n023.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 22:45:54 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.63/0.67 ________ _____
% 0.63/0.67 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.63/0.67 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.63/0.67 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.63/0.67 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.63/0.67
% 0.63/0.67 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.63/0.67 (2023-06-19)
% 0.63/0.67
% 0.63/0.67 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.63/0.67 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.63/0.67 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.63/0.67 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.63/0.67
% 0.63/0.67 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.63/0.67
% 0.63/0.67 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.63/0.68 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.63/0.69 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.71/1.12 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.71/1.13 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.93/1.16 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.93/1.16 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.93/1.16 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.93/1.16 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.93/1.17 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 4.54/1.37 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 4.66/1.37 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 4.66/1.39 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.66/1.40 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.66/1.40 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.20/1.49 Prover 1: gave up
% 5.20/1.49 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 5.20/1.49 Prover 3: gave up
% 5.20/1.50 Prover 6: gave up
% 5.20/1.50 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889
% 5.20/1.51 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.20/1.52 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 5.20/1.52 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 5.81/1.55 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 5.81/1.55 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 5.81/1.56 Prover 9: Preprocessing ...
% 6.25/1.60 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.25/1.61 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.25/1.63 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.25/1.64 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.00/1.69 Prover 8: gave up
% 7.00/1.69 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 7.35/1.73 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 7.47/1.76 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.47/1.76 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.47/1.77 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.47/1.81 Prover 2: proved (1125ms)
% 8.03/1.82
% 8.03/1.82 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 8.03/1.82
% 8.03/1.82 Prover 9: stopped
% 8.03/1.82 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 8.03/1.82 Prover 0: stopped
% 8.03/1.82 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 8.03/1.83 Prover 5: stopped
% 8.03/1.84 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683
% 8.03/1.84 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085
% 8.38/1.87 Prover 16: Preprocessing ...
% 8.38/1.88 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 8.38/1.88 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 8.38/1.89 Prover 19: Preprocessing ...
% 8.38/1.90 Prover 16: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.38/1.91 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 10: Found proof (size 20)
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 10: proved (234ms)
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 7: stopped
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 4: stopped
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 16: stopped
% 8.38/1.93 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.38/1.94 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.38/1.94 Prover 13: stopped
% 9.00/1.96 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 9.00/1.96 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.00/1.97 Prover 19: stopped
% 9.00/1.98 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 9.15/1.98 Prover 11: stopped
% 9.15/1.98
% 9.15/1.98 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.15/1.98
% 9.15/1.99 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 9.15/1.99 Assumptions after simplification:
% 9.15/1.99 ---------------------------------
% 9.15/1.99
% 9.15/1.99 (apart1)
% 9.15/2.00 ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_points(v0, v0))
% 9.15/2.00
% 9.15/2.00 (ceq3)
% 9.15/2.00 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0,
% 9.15/2.00 v1) | distinct_lines(v0, v1))
% 9.15/2.00
% 9.15/2.00 (con)
% 9.15/2.02 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] :
% 9.15/2.02 (intersection_point(v2, v1) = v4 & intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3 & $i(v4) &
% 9.15/2.02 $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & apart_point_and_line(v4, v0) &
% 9.15/2.02 convergent_lines(v2, v1) & convergent_lines(v0, v2) & convergent_lines(v0,
% 9.15/2.02 v1) & ~ apart_point_and_line(v3, v2))
% 9.15/2.02
% 9.15/2.02 (con2)
% 9.15/2.02 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 9.15/2.02 (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 9.15/2.02 apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 9.15/2.02 distinct_points(v2, v3)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3:
% 9.15/2.02 $i] : ( ~ (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~
% 9.36/2.02 $i(v0) | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 9.36/2.02 distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 9.36/2.02
% 9.36/2.02 (cu1)
% 9.36/2.02 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) | ~ $i(v2)
% 9.36/2.02 | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ distinct_lines(v2, v3) | ~ distinct_points(v0,
% 9.36/2.02 v1) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v1, v2) |
% 9.36/2.02 apart_point_and_line(v0, v3) | apart_point_and_line(v0, v2))
% 9.36/2.02
% 9.36/2.02 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 9.36/2.02 --------------------------------------------
% 9.36/2.02 apart2, apart3, apart4, apart5, apart6, ceq1, ceq2, con1
% 9.36/2.02
% 9.36/2.02 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 9.36/2.02 ---------------------------------
% 9.36/2.02
% 9.36/2.02 Begin of proof
% 9.36/2.03 |
% 9.36/2.03 | ALPHA: (con2) implies:
% 9.36/2.03 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 9.36/2.03 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 9.36/2.03 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v0) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 9.36/2.03 | distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 9.36/2.03 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 9.36/2.03 | (intersection_point(v0, v1) = v3) | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 9.36/2.03 | | ~ apart_point_and_line(v2, v1) | ~ convergent_lines(v0, v1) |
% 9.36/2.03 | distinct_points(v2, v3))
% 9.36/2.03 |
% 9.36/2.03 | DELTA: instantiating (con) with fresh symbols all_20_0, all_20_1, all_20_2,
% 9.36/2.03 | all_20_3, all_20_4 gives:
% 9.36/2.03 | (3) intersection_point(all_20_2, all_20_3) = all_20_0 &
% 9.36/2.03 | intersection_point(all_20_4, all_20_3) = all_20_1 & $i(all_20_0) &
% 9.36/2.03 | $i(all_20_1) & $i(all_20_2) & $i(all_20_3) & $i(all_20_4) &
% 9.36/2.03 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4) & convergent_lines(all_20_2,
% 9.36/2.03 | all_20_3) & convergent_lines(all_20_4, all_20_2) &
% 9.36/2.03 | convergent_lines(all_20_4, all_20_3) & ~
% 9.36/2.03 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2)
% 9.36/2.03 |
% 9.36/2.03 | ALPHA: (3) implies:
% 9.36/2.03 | (4) ~ apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_2)
% 9.36/2.03 | (5) convergent_lines(all_20_4, all_20_3)
% 9.36/2.03 | (6) convergent_lines(all_20_2, all_20_3)
% 9.36/2.03 | (7) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_4)
% 9.36/2.03 | (8) $i(all_20_4)
% 9.36/2.03 | (9) $i(all_20_3)
% 9.36/2.03 | (10) $i(all_20_2)
% 9.36/2.03 | (11) $i(all_20_1)
% 9.36/2.03 | (12) $i(all_20_0)
% 9.36/2.03 | (13) intersection_point(all_20_4, all_20_3) = all_20_1
% 9.36/2.03 | (14) intersection_point(all_20_2, all_20_3) = all_20_0
% 9.36/2.03 |
% 9.36/2.03 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ceq3) with all_20_2, all_20_3, simplifying with
% 9.36/2.03 | (6), (9), (10) gives:
% 9.36/2.04 | (15) distinct_lines(all_20_2, all_20_3)
% 9.36/2.04 |
% 9.36/2.04 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_20_4, all_20_3, all_20_0, all_20_1,
% 9.36/2.04 | simplifying with (5), (7), (8), (9), (12), (13) gives:
% 9.36/2.04 | (16) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_1)
% 9.36/2.04 |
% 9.36/2.04 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (cu1) with all_20_0, all_20_1, all_20_2, all_20_3,
% 9.36/2.04 | simplifying with (4), (9), (10), (11), (12), (15), (16) gives:
% 9.36/2.04 | (17) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_2) |
% 9.36/2.04 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_3) |
% 9.36/2.04 | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)
% 9.36/2.04 |
% 9.36/2.04 | BETA: splitting (17) gives:
% 9.36/2.04 |
% 9.36/2.04 | Case 1:
% 9.36/2.04 | |
% 9.36/2.04 | | (18) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_2)
% 9.36/2.04 | |
% 9.36/2.04 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_20_2, all_20_3, all_20_0, all_20_0,
% 9.36/2.04 | | simplifying with (6), (9), (10), (12), (14), (18) gives:
% 9.36/2.04 | | (19) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_0)
% 9.36/2.04 | |
% 9.36/2.04 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (apart1) with all_20_0, simplifying with (12),
% 9.44/2.04 | | (19) gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | | (20) $false
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | CLOSE: (20) is inconsistent.
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | Case 2:
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | (21) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_3) |
% 9.44/2.04 | | apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | BETA: splitting (21) gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | Case 1:
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (22) apart_point_and_line(all_20_0, all_20_3)
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_20_2, all_20_3, all_20_0,
% 9.44/2.04 | | | all_20_0, simplifying with (6), (9), (10), (12), (14), (22)
% 9.44/2.04 | | | gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (23) distinct_points(all_20_0, all_20_0)
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (apart1) with all_20_0, simplifying with (12),
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (23) gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (24) $false
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | CLOSE: (24) is inconsistent.
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | Case 2:
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (25) apart_point_and_line(all_20_1, all_20_3)
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_20_4, all_20_3, all_20_1,
% 9.44/2.04 | | | all_20_1, simplifying with (5), (8), (9), (11), (13), (25)
% 9.44/2.04 | | | gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (26) distinct_points(all_20_1, all_20_1)
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (apart1) with all_20_1, simplifying with (11),
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (26) gives:
% 9.44/2.04 | | | (27) $false
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent.
% 9.44/2.04 | | |
% 9.44/2.04 | | End of split
% 9.44/2.04 | |
% 9.44/2.04 | End of split
% 9.44/2.05 |
% 9.44/2.05 End of proof
% 9.44/2.05 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 9.44/2.05
% 9.44/2.05 1376ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------