TSTP Solution File: KRS122+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : KRS122+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n020.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 : Thu Aug 31 05:51:20 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 6.03s 1.59s
% Output : Proof 8.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS122+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 01:32:14 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.61 ________ _____
% 0.20/0.61 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.61 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.20/0.61 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.20/0.61 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.61 (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.61 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.61 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.61 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.62 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/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
% 1.87/1.08 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 1.87/1.08 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.89/1.12 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 5.13/1.39 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 5.13/1.41 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 5.13/1.46 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 5.13/1.47 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.79/1.50 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.03/1.51 Prover 6: gave up
% 6.03/1.53 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 6.03/1.55 Prover 3: gave up
% 6.03/1.55 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 6.03/1.57 Prover 1: gave up
% 6.03/1.58 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 6.03/1.58 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.58 Prover 2: proved (942ms)
% 6.03/1.58
% 6.03/1.59 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.03/1.59
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 5: proved (944ms)
% 6.03/1.59
% 6.03/1.59 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.03/1.59
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 0: stopped
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 6.03/1.59 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.63 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.64 Prover 9: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.65 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.66 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 6.03/1.67 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.03/1.70 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.27/1.77 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.27/1.78 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.27/1.81 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.27/1.81 Prover 7: Found proof (size 24)
% 7.27/1.81 Prover 7: proved (285ms)
% 7.27/1.81 Prover 10: stopped
% 7.27/1.81 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.27/1.82 Prover 4: Found proof (size 25)
% 7.27/1.82 Prover 4: proved (1179ms)
% 7.27/1.82 Prover 13: stopped
% 7.27/1.83 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.33/1.84 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.33/1.85 Prover 8: stopped
% 8.33/1.87 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.33/1.88 Prover 11: stopped
% 8.33/1.90 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.33/1.90 Prover 9: stopped
% 8.33/1.90
% 8.33/1.90 % SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 8.33/1.90
% 8.33/1.90 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 8.33/1.91 Assumptions after simplification:
% 8.33/1.91 ---------------------------------
% 8.33/1.91
% 8.33/1.91 (axiom_11)
% 8.33/1.91 $i(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116) & cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116)
% 8.33/1.91
% 8.33/1.91 (axiom_2)
% 8.33/1.91 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rf(v0, v1) | ~
% 8.33/1.91 ca_Ax2(v1) | cUnsatisfiable(v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 8.33/1.91 cUnsatisfiable(v0) | ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & rf(v0, v1) & ca_Ax2(v1)))
% 8.33/1.91
% 8.33/1.91 (axiom_3)
% 8.33/1.92 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ra_Px1(v0, v1) | ~
% 8.33/1.92 cp1(v0)) & ? [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | cp1(v0) | ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) &
% 8.33/1.92 ra_Px1(v0, v1)))
% 8.33/1.92
% 8.33/1.92 (axiom_4)
% 8.81/1.92 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ra_Px1(v0, v1) |
% 8.81/1.92 cp1xcomp(v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ cp1xcomp(v0) | ? [v1: $i] :
% 8.81/1.92 ($i(v1) & ra_Px1(v0, v1)))
% 8.81/1.92
% 8.81/1.92 (axiom_5)
% 8.81/1.92 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rinvF(v0, v1) | ~
% 8.81/1.92 ca_Ax2(v0) | ca_Vx3(v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ cp1(v0) |
% 8.81/1.92 ca_Ax2(v0) | ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & rinvF(v0, v1) & ~ ca_Vx3(v1))) & !
% 8.81/1.92 [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ca_Ax2(v0) | cp1(v0))
% 8.81/1.92
% 8.81/1.92 (axiom_6)
% 8.81/1.92 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rf(v0, v1) | ~
% 8.81/1.92 cp1xcomp(v1) | ca_Vx3(v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ca_Vx3(v0) | ?
% 8.81/1.92 [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & rf(v0, v1) & cp1xcomp(v1)))
% 8.81/1.92
% 8.81/1.92 (axiom_7)
% 8.81/1.92 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = v1 | ~ $i(v2) | ~ $i(v1) |
% 8.81/1.92 ~ $i(v0) | ~ rf(v0, v2) | ~ rf(v0, v1))
% 8.81/1.92
% 8.81/1.92 (axiom_8)
% 8.81/1.93 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rinvF(v0, v1) | rf(v1,
% 8.81/1.93 v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rf(v1, v0)
% 8.81/1.93 | rinvF(v0, v1))
% 8.81/1.93
% 8.81/1.93 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 8.81/1.93 --------------------------------------------
% 8.81/1.93 axiom_0, axiom_1, axiom_10, axiom_9, cUnsatisfiable_substitution_1,
% 8.81/1.93 ca_Ax2_substitution_1, ca_Vx3_substitution_1, cowlNothing_substitution_1,
% 8.81/1.93 cowlThing_substitution_1, cp1_substitution_1, cp1xcomp_substitution_1,
% 8.81/1.93 ra_Px1_substitution_1, ra_Px1_substitution_2, rf_substitution_1,
% 8.81/1.93 rf_substitution_2, rinvF_substitution_1, rinvF_substitution_2,
% 8.81/1.93 rinvR_substitution_1, rinvR_substitution_2, rr_substitution_1,
% 8.81/1.93 rr_substitution_2, xsd_integer_substitution_1, xsd_string_substitution_1
% 8.81/1.93
% 8.81/1.93 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 8.81/1.93 ---------------------------------
% 8.81/1.93
% 8.81/1.93 Begin of proof
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_11) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (1) cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116)
% 8.81/1.93 | (2) $i(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116)
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_8) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rf(v1, v0) |
% 8.81/1.93 | rinvF(v0, v1))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_6) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (4) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ca_Vx3(v0) | ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) &
% 8.81/1.93 | rf(v0, v1) & cp1xcomp(v1)))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_5) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (5) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ ca_Ax2(v0) | cp1(v0))
% 8.81/1.93 | (6) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ rinvF(v0, v1) |
% 8.81/1.93 | ~ ca_Ax2(v0) | ca_Vx3(v1))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_4) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (7) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ cp1xcomp(v0) | ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) &
% 8.81/1.93 | ra_Px1(v0, v1)))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_3) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (8) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ ra_Px1(v0, v1)
% 8.81/1.93 | | ~ cp1(v0))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | ALPHA: (axiom_2) implies:
% 8.81/1.93 | (9) ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) | ~ cUnsatisfiable(v0) | ? [v1: $i] :
% 8.81/1.93 | ($i(v1) & rf(v0, v1) & ca_Ax2(v1)))
% 8.81/1.93 |
% 8.81/1.93 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (9) with i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, simplifying with
% 8.81/1.93 | (1), (2) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (10) ? [v0: $i] : ($i(v0) & rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, v0) & ca_Ax2(v0))
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | DELTA: instantiating (10) with fresh symbol all_22_0 gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (11) $i(all_22_0) & rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, all_22_0) &
% 8.81/1.94 | ca_Ax2(all_22_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | ALPHA: (11) implies:
% 8.81/1.94 | (12) ca_Ax2(all_22_0)
% 8.81/1.94 | (13) rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, all_22_0)
% 8.81/1.94 | (14) $i(all_22_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with all_22_0, simplifying with (12), (14)
% 8.81/1.94 | gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (15) cp1(all_22_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_22_0, i2003_11_14_17_21_55116,
% 8.81/1.94 | simplifying with (2), (13), (14) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (16) rinvF(all_22_0, i2003_11_14_17_21_55116)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (6) with all_22_0, i2003_11_14_17_21_55116,
% 8.81/1.94 | simplifying with (2), (12), (14), (16) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (17) ca_Vx3(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (4) with i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, simplifying with
% 8.81/1.94 | (2), (17) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (18) ? [v0: $i] : ($i(v0) & rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, v0) &
% 8.81/1.94 | cp1xcomp(v0))
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | DELTA: instantiating (18) with fresh symbol all_41_0 gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (19) $i(all_41_0) & rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, all_41_0) &
% 8.81/1.94 | cp1xcomp(all_41_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | ALPHA: (19) implies:
% 8.81/1.94 | (20) cp1xcomp(all_41_0)
% 8.81/1.94 | (21) rf(i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, all_41_0)
% 8.81/1.94 | (22) $i(all_41_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (7) with all_41_0, simplifying with (20), (22)
% 8.81/1.94 | gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (23) ? [v0: $i] : ($i(v0) & ra_Px1(all_41_0, v0))
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (axiom_7) with i2003_11_14_17_21_55116, all_22_0,
% 8.81/1.94 | all_41_0, simplifying with (2), (13), (14), (21), (22) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (24) all_41_0 = all_22_0
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | DELTA: instantiating (23) with fresh symbol all_49_0 gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (25) $i(all_49_0) & ra_Px1(all_41_0, all_49_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | ALPHA: (25) implies:
% 8.81/1.94 | (26) ra_Px1(all_41_0, all_49_0)
% 8.81/1.94 | (27) $i(all_49_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | REDUCE: (24), (26) imply:
% 8.81/1.94 | (28) ra_Px1(all_22_0, all_49_0)
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_22_0, all_49_0, simplifying with (14),
% 8.81/1.94 | (15), (27), (28) gives:
% 8.81/1.94 | (29) $false
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 | CLOSE: (29) is inconsistent.
% 8.81/1.94 |
% 8.81/1.94 End of proof
% 8.81/1.94 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 8.81/1.94
% 8.81/1.94 1328ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------