TSTP Solution File: MGT041+2 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : MGT041+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n008.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 09:16:24 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 3.95s 1.24s
% Output : Proof 4.60s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT041+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:12:17 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.62 ________ _____
% 0.19/0.62 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.62 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.19/0.62 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.19/0.62 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.62
% 0.19/0.62 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.62 (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.62
% 0.19/0.62 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.62 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.62 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.62 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.62
% 0.19/0.62 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.62
% 0.19/0.62 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.19/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.19/0.64 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 1.89/0.96 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/0.96 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/1.01 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/1.01 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/1.01 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/1.01 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 1.89/1.01 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.97/1.10 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.97/1.10 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.97/1.12 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 2.97/1.13 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.97/1.15 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.97/1.17 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.66/1.19 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.95/1.24 Prover 2: proved (594ms)
% 3.95/1.24
% 3.95/1.24 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.95/1.24
% 3.95/1.24 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 3.95/1.24 Prover 3: stopped
% 3.95/1.24 Prover 0: stopped
% 3.95/1.24 Prover 6: stopped
% 3.95/1.25 Prover 5: stopped
% 3.95/1.25 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 3.95/1.25 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 3.95/1.26 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 3.95/1.26 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 3.95/1.26 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 3.95/1.27 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 3.95/1.28 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.95/1.29 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 3.95/1.29 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 3.95/1.29 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 3.95/1.30 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.60/1.32 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.60/1.33 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 4.60/1.34 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 7: Found proof (size 12)
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 7: proved (108ms)
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 10: stopped
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 8: stopped
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 13: Found proof (size 12)
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 1: stopped
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 13: proved (94ms)
% 4.60/1.35 Prover 4: stopped
% 4.60/1.37 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.60/1.38 Prover 11: stopped
% 4.60/1.38
% 4.60/1.38 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 4.60/1.38
% 4.60/1.38 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.60/1.38 Assumptions after simplification:
% 4.60/1.38 ---------------------------------
% 4.60/1.38
% 4.60/1.38 (a14)
% 4.60/1.39 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ founding_time(v0, v1)
% 4.60/1.39 | ~ efficient_producer(v0) | ~ organisation_at_time(v0, v1) |
% 4.60/1.39 has_elaborated_routines(v0, v1))
% 4.60/1.39
% 4.60/1.39 (a15)
% 4.60/1.39 $i(low) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 4.60/1.39 first_mover(v0) | ~ founding_time(v0, v1) | ~ organisation_at_time(v0, v1)
% 4.60/1.39 | number_of_routines(v0, v1, low))
% 4.60/1.39
% 4.60/1.39 (a16)
% 4.60/1.39 $i(high) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & $i(v0) & founding_time(v0,
% 4.60/1.39 v1) & organisation_at_time(v0, v1) & number_of_routines(v0, v1, high) & ~
% 4.60/1.39 has_elaborated_routines(v0, v1))
% 4.60/1.39
% 4.60/1.39 (mp_not_high_and_low)
% 4.60/1.39 $i(high) & $i(low) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 4.60/1.39 number_of_routines(v0, v1, high) | ~ number_of_routines(v0, v1, low))
% 4.60/1.39
% 4.60/1.39 (prove_t10)
% 4.60/1.40 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 4.60/1.40 organisation_at_time(v0, v1) | first_mover(v0) | efficient_producer(v0))
% 4.60/1.40
% 4.60/1.40 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 4.60/1.40 ---------------------------------
% 4.60/1.40
% 4.60/1.40 Begin of proof
% 4.60/1.40 |
% 4.60/1.40 | ALPHA: (a16) implies:
% 4.60/1.40 | (1) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & $i(v0) & founding_time(v0, v1) &
% 4.60/1.40 | organisation_at_time(v0, v1) & number_of_routines(v0, v1, high) & ~
% 4.60/1.40 | has_elaborated_routines(v0, v1))
% 4.60/1.40 |
% 4.60/1.40 | ALPHA: (a15) implies:
% 4.60/1.40 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ first_mover(v0)
% 4.60/1.40 | | ~ founding_time(v0, v1) | ~ organisation_at_time(v0, v1) |
% 4.60/1.40 | number_of_routines(v0, v1, low))
% 4.60/1.40 |
% 4.60/1.40 | ALPHA: (mp_not_high_and_low) implies:
% 4.60/1.40 | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 4.60/1.40 | number_of_routines(v0, v1, high) | ~ number_of_routines(v0, v1,
% 4.60/1.40 | low))
% 4.60/1.40 |
% 4.60/1.40 | DELTA: instantiating (1) with fresh symbols all_7_0, all_7_1 gives:
% 4.60/1.40 | (4) $i(all_7_0) & $i(all_7_1) & founding_time(all_7_1, all_7_0) &
% 4.60/1.40 | organisation_at_time(all_7_1, all_7_0) & number_of_routines(all_7_1,
% 4.60/1.40 | all_7_0, high) & ~ has_elaborated_routines(all_7_1, all_7_0)
% 4.60/1.40 |
% 4.60/1.40 | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 4.60/1.41 | (5) ~ has_elaborated_routines(all_7_1, all_7_0)
% 4.60/1.41 | (6) number_of_routines(all_7_1, all_7_0, high)
% 4.60/1.41 | (7) organisation_at_time(all_7_1, all_7_0)
% 4.60/1.41 | (8) founding_time(all_7_1, all_7_0)
% 4.60/1.41 | (9) $i(all_7_1)
% 4.60/1.41 | (10) $i(all_7_0)
% 4.60/1.41 |
% 4.60/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_7_1, all_7_0, simplifying with (6),
% 4.60/1.41 | (9), (10) gives:
% 4.60/1.41 | (11) ~ number_of_routines(all_7_1, all_7_0, low)
% 4.60/1.41 |
% 4.60/1.41 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (prove_t10) with all_7_1, all_7_0, simplifying with
% 4.60/1.41 | (7), (9), (10) gives:
% 4.60/1.41 | (12) first_mover(all_7_1) | efficient_producer(all_7_1)
% 4.60/1.41 |
% 4.60/1.41 | BETA: splitting (12) gives:
% 4.60/1.41 |
% 4.60/1.41 | Case 1:
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | (13) first_mover(all_7_1)
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_7_1, all_7_0, simplifying with (7),
% 4.60/1.41 | | (8), (9), (10), (11), (13) gives:
% 4.60/1.41 | | (14) $false
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | CLOSE: (14) is inconsistent.
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | Case 2:
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | (15) efficient_producer(all_7_1)
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (a14) with all_7_1, all_7_0, simplifying with
% 4.60/1.41 | | (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), (15) gives:
% 4.60/1.41 | | (16) $false
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | | CLOSE: (16) is inconsistent.
% 4.60/1.41 | |
% 4.60/1.41 | End of split
% 4.60/1.41 |
% 4.60/1.41 End of proof
% 4.60/1.41 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.60/1.41
% 4.60/1.41 793ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------