TSTP Solution File: SEU219+3 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SEU219+3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n022.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 17:43:22 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 9.03s 1.98s
% Output : Proof 12.80s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SEU219+3 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.34 % DateTime : Wed Aug 23 18:12:41 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.61 ________ _____
% 0.21/0.61 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.21/0.61 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.21/0.61 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.21/0.61 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.21/0.61 (2023-06-19)
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.21/0.61 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.21/0.61 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.21/0.61 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.21/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.21/0.65 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.94/1.13 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.13 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.16 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.16 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.16 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.16 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.94/1.16 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 6.24/1.60 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.24/1.63 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.24/1.64 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 6.24/1.66 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 6.24/1.66 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 6.94/1.69 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.94/1.69 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.14/1.72 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.14/1.73 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 8.38/1.89 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 9.03/1.98 Prover 3: proved (1328ms)
% 9.03/1.98
% 9.03/1.98 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.03/1.98
% 9.03/1.98 Prover 0: stopped
% 9.03/1.98 Prover 5: stopped
% 9.03/1.98 Prover 6: stopped
% 9.03/1.98 Prover 2: stopped
% 9.03/2.00 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 9.03/2.00 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 9.03/2.00 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 9.03/2.00 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 9.03/2.00 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 9.03/2.08 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 9.37/2.11 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 9.37/2.11 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 9.37/2.12 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 9.37/2.12 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 10.14/2.21 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.67/2.24 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 10.67/2.25 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.67/2.26 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.08/2.30 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.08/2.32 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.08/2.33 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.08/2.35 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.30/2.43 Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 12.41/2.45 Prover 10: Found proof (size 28)
% 12.41/2.45 Prover 10: proved (467ms)
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 8: stopped
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 1: stopped
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 4: stopped
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 7: Found proof (size 24)
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 7: proved (481ms)
% 12.41/2.46 Prover 13: stopped
% 12.41/2.47 Prover 11: stopped
% 12.41/2.47
% 12.41/2.47 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 12.41/2.47
% 12.41/2.47 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 12.41/2.48 Assumptions after simplification:
% 12.41/2.48 ---------------------------------
% 12.41/2.48
% 12.41/2.48 (d9_funct_1)
% 12.41/2.50 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (function_inverse(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 12.41/2.50 one_to_one(v0) | ~ relation(v0) | ~ function(v0) | (relation_inverse(v0) =
% 12.41/2.50 v1 & $i(v1)))
% 12.41/2.50
% 12.41/2.50 (dt_k2_funct_1)
% 12.41/2.50 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (function_inverse(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 12.41/2.50 relation(v0) | ~ function(v0) | relation(v1)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] :
% 12.41/2.50 ( ~ (function_inverse(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ relation(v0) | ~
% 12.41/2.50 function(v0) | function(v1))
% 12.41/2.50
% 12.41/2.50 (involutiveness_k4_relat_1)
% 12.41/2.50 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (relation_inverse(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 12.41/2.50 relation(v0) | relation_inverse(v1) = v0)
% 12.41/2.50
% 12.41/2.50 (t37_relat_1)
% 12.41/2.51 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (relation_rng(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 12.41/2.51 relation(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : (relation_rng(v2) = v3 &
% 12.41/2.51 relation_dom(v2) = v1 & relation_dom(v0) = v3 & relation_inverse(v0) = v2
% 12.41/2.51 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1)))
% 12.41/2.51
% 12.41/2.51 (t55_funct_1)
% 12.41/2.51 ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5:
% 12.41/2.51 $i] : (function_inverse(v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & $i(v0) & one_to_one(v0) &
% 12.41/2.51 relation(v0) & function(v0) & (( ~ (v5 = v4) & relation_rng(v2) = v5 &
% 12.41/2.51 relation_dom(v0) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4)) | ( ~ (v3 = v1) &
% 12.41/2.51 relation_rng(v0) = v1 & relation_dom(v2) = v3 & $i(v3) & $i(v1))))
% 12.41/2.51
% 12.41/2.51 (function-axioms)
% 12.41/2.51 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (relation_rng(v2) =
% 12.41/2.51 v1) | ~ (relation_rng(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2:
% 12.41/2.51 $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (relation_dom(v2) = v1) | ~ (relation_dom(v2) = v0)) &
% 12.41/2.51 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (powerset(v2) = v1) |
% 12.41/2.51 ~ (powerset(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0
% 12.41/2.51 | ~ (function_inverse(v2) = v1) | ~ (function_inverse(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 12.41/2.51 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (relation_inverse(v2) = v1)
% 12.41/2.51 | ~ (relation_inverse(v2) = v0))
% 12.41/2.51
% 12.41/2.51 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 12.41/2.51 --------------------------------------------
% 12.41/2.51 antisymmetry_r2_hidden, cc1_funct_1, cc1_relat_1, cc2_funct_1, dt_k4_relat_1,
% 12.41/2.51 existence_m1_subset_1, fc11_relat_1, fc12_relat_1, fc1_subset_1, fc1_xboole_0,
% 12.41/2.51 fc3_funct_1, fc4_relat_1, fc5_relat_1, fc6_relat_1, fc7_relat_1, fc8_relat_1,
% 12.41/2.51 rc1_funct_1, rc1_relat_1, rc1_subset_1, rc1_xboole_0, rc2_funct_1, rc2_relat_1,
% 12.80/2.51 rc2_subset_1, rc2_xboole_0, rc3_funct_1, rc3_relat_1, reflexivity_r1_tarski,
% 12.80/2.51 t1_subset, t2_subset, t3_subset, t4_subset, t5_subset, t6_boole, t7_boole,
% 12.80/2.51 t8_boole
% 12.80/2.51
% 12.80/2.51 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 12.80/2.51 ---------------------------------
% 12.80/2.51
% 12.80/2.51 Begin of proof
% 12.80/2.51 |
% 12.80/2.51 | ALPHA: (dt_k2_funct_1) implies:
% 12.80/2.51 | (1) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (function_inverse(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0)
% 12.80/2.51 | | ~ relation(v0) | ~ function(v0) | relation(v1))
% 12.80/2.51 |
% 12.80/2.51 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 12.80/2.52 | (2) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 12.80/2.52 | (relation_inverse(v2) = v1) | ~ (relation_inverse(v2) = v0))
% 12.80/2.52 | (3) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 12.80/2.52 | (relation_dom(v2) = v1) | ~ (relation_dom(v2) = v0))
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | DELTA: instantiating (t55_funct_1) with fresh symbols all_48_0, all_48_1,
% 12.80/2.52 | all_48_2, all_48_3, all_48_4, all_48_5 gives:
% 12.80/2.52 | (4) function_inverse(all_48_5) = all_48_3 & $i(all_48_3) & $i(all_48_5) &
% 12.80/2.52 | one_to_one(all_48_5) & relation(all_48_5) & function(all_48_5) & (( ~
% 12.80/2.52 | (all_48_0 = all_48_1) & relation_rng(all_48_3) = all_48_0 &
% 12.80/2.52 | relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_48_1 & $i(all_48_0) & $i(all_48_1)) |
% 12.80/2.52 | ( ~ (all_48_2 = all_48_4) & relation_rng(all_48_5) = all_48_4 &
% 12.80/2.52 | relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_48_2 & $i(all_48_2) & $i(all_48_4)))
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 12.80/2.52 | (5) function(all_48_5)
% 12.80/2.52 | (6) relation(all_48_5)
% 12.80/2.52 | (7) one_to_one(all_48_5)
% 12.80/2.52 | (8) $i(all_48_5)
% 12.80/2.52 | (9) function_inverse(all_48_5) = all_48_3
% 12.80/2.52 | (10) ( ~ (all_48_0 = all_48_1) & relation_rng(all_48_3) = all_48_0 &
% 12.80/2.52 | relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_48_1 & $i(all_48_0) & $i(all_48_1)) | (
% 12.80/2.52 | ~ (all_48_2 = all_48_4) & relation_rng(all_48_5) = all_48_4 &
% 12.80/2.52 | relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_48_2 & $i(all_48_2) & $i(all_48_4))
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (d9_funct_1) with all_48_5, all_48_3, simplifying
% 12.80/2.52 | with (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) gives:
% 12.80/2.52 | (11) relation_inverse(all_48_5) = all_48_3 & $i(all_48_3)
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | ALPHA: (11) implies:
% 12.80/2.52 | (12) $i(all_48_3)
% 12.80/2.52 | (13) relation_inverse(all_48_5) = all_48_3
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_48_5, all_48_3, simplifying with (5),
% 12.80/2.52 | (6), (8), (9) gives:
% 12.80/2.52 | (14) relation(all_48_3)
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (involutiveness_k4_relat_1) with all_48_5,
% 12.80/2.52 | all_48_3, simplifying with (6), (8), (13) gives:
% 12.80/2.52 | (15) relation_inverse(all_48_3) = all_48_5
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | BETA: splitting (10) gives:
% 12.80/2.52 |
% 12.80/2.52 | Case 1:
% 12.80/2.52 | |
% 12.80/2.52 | | (16) ~ (all_48_0 = all_48_1) & relation_rng(all_48_3) = all_48_0 &
% 12.80/2.52 | | relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_48_1 & $i(all_48_0) & $i(all_48_1)
% 12.80/2.52 | |
% 12.80/2.52 | | ALPHA: (16) implies:
% 12.80/2.52 | | (17) ~ (all_48_0 = all_48_1)
% 12.80/2.52 | | (18) relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_48_1
% 12.80/2.52 | | (19) relation_rng(all_48_3) = all_48_0
% 12.80/2.52 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t37_relat_1) with all_48_3, all_48_0,
% 12.80/2.53 | | simplifying with (12), (14), (19) gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (20) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : (relation_rng(v0) = v1 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_dom(v0) = all_48_0 & relation_dom(all_48_3) = v1 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_inverse(all_48_3) = v0 & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & $i(all_48_0))
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | DELTA: instantiating (20) with fresh symbols all_88_0, all_88_1 gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (21) relation_rng(all_88_1) = all_88_0 & relation_dom(all_88_1) =
% 12.80/2.53 | | all_48_0 & relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_88_0 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_inverse(all_48_3) = all_88_1 & $i(all_88_0) & $i(all_88_1)
% 12.80/2.53 | | & $i(all_48_0)
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | ALPHA: (21) implies:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (22) relation_inverse(all_48_3) = all_88_1
% 12.80/2.53 | | (23) relation_dom(all_88_1) = all_48_0
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_48_5, all_88_1, all_48_3,
% 12.80/2.53 | | simplifying with (15), (22) gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (24) all_88_1 = all_48_5
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | REDUCE: (23), (24) imply:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (25) relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_48_0
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_48_1, all_48_0, all_48_5,
% 12.80/2.53 | | simplifying with (18), (25) gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (26) all_48_0 = all_48_1
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | REDUCE: (17), (26) imply:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (27) $false
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | CLOSE: (27) is inconsistent.
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | Case 2:
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | (28) ~ (all_48_2 = all_48_4) & relation_rng(all_48_5) = all_48_4 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_48_2 & $i(all_48_2) & $i(all_48_4)
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | ALPHA: (28) implies:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (29) ~ (all_48_2 = all_48_4)
% 12.80/2.53 | | (30) relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_48_2
% 12.80/2.53 | | (31) relation_rng(all_48_5) = all_48_4
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (t37_relat_1) with all_48_5, all_48_4,
% 12.80/2.53 | | simplifying with (6), (8), (31) gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (32) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : (relation_rng(v0) = v1 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_dom(v0) = all_48_4 & relation_dom(all_48_5) = v1 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_inverse(all_48_5) = v0 & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & $i(all_48_4))
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | DELTA: instantiating (32) with fresh symbols all_88_0, all_88_1 gives:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (33) relation_rng(all_88_1) = all_88_0 & relation_dom(all_88_1) =
% 12.80/2.53 | | all_48_4 & relation_dom(all_48_5) = all_88_0 &
% 12.80/2.53 | | relation_inverse(all_48_5) = all_88_1 & $i(all_88_0) & $i(all_88_1)
% 12.80/2.53 | | & $i(all_48_4)
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | ALPHA: (33) implies:
% 12.80/2.53 | | (34) relation_inverse(all_48_5) = all_88_1
% 12.80/2.53 | | (35) relation_dom(all_88_1) = all_48_4
% 12.80/2.53 | |
% 12.80/2.53 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_48_3, all_88_1, all_48_5,
% 12.80/2.53 | | simplifying with (13), (34) gives:
% 12.80/2.54 | | (36) all_88_1 = all_48_3
% 12.80/2.54 | |
% 12.80/2.54 | | REDUCE: (35), (36) imply:
% 12.80/2.54 | | (37) relation_dom(all_48_3) = all_48_4
% 12.80/2.54 | |
% 12.80/2.54 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (3) with all_48_2, all_48_4, all_48_3,
% 12.80/2.54 | | simplifying with (30), (37) gives:
% 12.80/2.54 | | (38) all_48_2 = all_48_4
% 12.80/2.54 | |
% 12.80/2.54 | | REDUCE: (29), (38) imply:
% 12.80/2.54 | | (39) $false
% 12.80/2.54 | |
% 12.80/2.54 | | CLOSE: (39) is inconsistent.
% 12.80/2.54 | |
% 12.80/2.54 | End of split
% 12.80/2.54 |
% 12.80/2.54 End of proof
% 12.80/2.54 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 12.80/2.54
% 12.80/2.54 1923ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------