TSTP Solution File: SEU280+1 by ePrincess---1.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ePrincess---1.0
% Problem : SEU280+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s
% Computer : n011.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Tue Jul 19 08:48:26 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 8.30s 2.70s
% Output : Proof 11.56s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SEU280+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : ePrincess-casc -timeout=%d %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n011.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 : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Jun 20 01:22:09 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.61/0.58 ____ _
% 0.61/0.58 ___ / __ \_____(_)___ ________ __________
% 0.61/0.58 / _ \/ /_/ / ___/ / __ \/ ___/ _ \/ ___/ ___/
% 0.61/0.58 / __/ ____/ / / / / / / /__/ __(__ |__ )
% 0.61/0.58 \___/_/ /_/ /_/_/ /_/\___/\___/____/____/
% 0.61/0.58
% 0.61/0.58 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic
% 0.61/0.58 (ePrincess v.1.0)
% 0.61/0.58
% 0.61/0.58 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2015
% 0.61/0.58 (c) Peter Backeman, 2014-2015
% 0.61/0.58 (contributions by Angelo Brillout, Peter Baumgartner)
% 0.61/0.58 Free software under GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).
% 0.61/0.58 Bug reports to peter@backeman.se
% 0.61/0.58
% 0.61/0.58 For more information, visit http://user.uu.se/~petba168/breu/
% 0.61/0.58
% 0.61/0.58 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.73/0.64 Prover 0: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 1.49/0.97 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 1.64/1.07 Prover 0: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 1.78/1.08 Prover 0: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.24/1.25 Prover 0: gave up
% 2.24/1.25 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 2.24/1.27 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.66/1.34 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 2.66/1.34 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.05/1.55 Prover 1: gave up
% 3.05/1.55 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 3.05/1.56 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.52/1.62 Prover 2: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 3.52/1.62 Prover 2: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.00/1.75 Prover 2: gave up
% 4.00/1.75 Prover 3: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 4.00/1.76 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 4.00/1.77 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 4.00/1.77 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 4.00/1.80 Prover 3: gave up
% 4.00/1.80 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=complete
% 4.00/1.81 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 4.36/1.85 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 4.36/1.86 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.26/2.05 Prover 4: gave up
% 5.26/2.05 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -resolutionMethod=nonUnifying +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 5.26/2.05 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/2.07 Prover 5: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 5.26/2.08 Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.72/2.16 Prover 5: gave up
% 5.72/2.16 Prover 6: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -resolutionMethod=normal +ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 5.72/2.16 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 5.72/2.19 Prover 6: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 5.72/2.19 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.09/2.28 Prover 6: gave up
% 6.09/2.28 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -resolutionMethod=normal -ignoreQuantifiers -generateTriggers=all
% 6.45/2.28 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 6.45/2.29 Prover 7: Proving ...
% 8.30/2.70 Prover 7: proved (427ms)
% 8.30/2.70
% 8.30/2.70 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 8.30/2.70
% 8.30/2.70 Generating proof ... found it (size 41)
% 11.56/3.46
% 11.56/3.46 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 11.56/3.46 Assumed formulas after preprocessing and simplification:
% 11.56/3.46 | (0) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ in(v1, v0) | ~ in(v0, v1)) & ! [v0] : ( ~ epsilon_connected(v0) | ~ epsilon_transitive(v0) | ordinal(v0)) & ! [v0] : ( ~ ordinal(v0) | (epsilon_connected(v0) & epsilon_transitive(v0))) & ? [v0] : ! [v1] : ? [v2] : (( ~ ordinal(v2) | ~ in(v2, v1) | ~ in(v2, v0)) & (in(v2, v1) | (ordinal(v2) & in(v2, v0)))) & ! [v0] : ? [v1] : ( ! [v2] : ( ~ ordinal(v2) | ~ in(v2, v0) | in(v2, v1)) & ! [v2] : ( ~ in(v2, v1) | (ordinal(v2) & in(v2, v0)))) & ? [v0] : (epsilon_connected(v0) & epsilon_transitive(v0) & ordinal(v0))
% 11.56/3.46 | Applying alpha-rule on (0) yields:
% 11.56/3.46 | (1) ? [v0] : ! [v1] : ? [v2] : (( ~ ordinal(v2) | ~ in(v2, v1) | ~ in(v2, v0)) & (in(v2, v1) | (ordinal(v2) & in(v2, v0))))
% 11.56/3.46 | (2) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : ( ! [v2] : ( ~ ordinal(v2) | ~ in(v2, v0) | in(v2, v1)) & ! [v2] : ( ~ in(v2, v1) | (ordinal(v2) & in(v2, v0))))
% 11.56/3.46 | (3) ! [v0] : ! [v1] : ( ~ in(v1, v0) | ~ in(v0, v1))
% 11.56/3.46 | (4) ? [v0] : (epsilon_connected(v0) & epsilon_transitive(v0) & ordinal(v0))
% 11.56/3.47 | (5) ! [v0] : ( ~ epsilon_connected(v0) | ~ epsilon_transitive(v0) | ordinal(v0))
% 11.56/3.47 | (6) ! [v0] : ( ~ ordinal(v0) | (epsilon_connected(v0) & epsilon_transitive(v0)))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating (1) with all_1_0_0 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (7) ! [v0] : ? [v1] : (( ~ ordinal(v1) | ~ in(v1, v0) | ~ in(v1, all_1_0_0)) & (in(v1, v0) | (ordinal(v1) & in(v1, all_1_0_0))))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Introducing new symbol ex_10_0_2 defined by:
% 11.56/3.47 | (8) ex_10_0_2 = all_1_0_0
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating formula (2) with ex_10_0_2 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (9) ? [v0] : ( ! [v1] : ( ~ ordinal(v1) | ~ in(v1, ex_10_0_2) | in(v1, v0)) & ! [v1] : ( ~ in(v1, v0) | (ordinal(v1) & in(v1, ex_10_0_2))))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating (9) with all_11_0_3 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (10) ! [v0] : ( ~ ordinal(v0) | ~ in(v0, ex_10_0_2) | in(v0, all_11_0_3)) & ! [v0] : ( ~ in(v0, all_11_0_3) | (ordinal(v0) & in(v0, ex_10_0_2)))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Applying alpha-rule on (10) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (11) ! [v0] : ( ~ ordinal(v0) | ~ in(v0, ex_10_0_2) | in(v0, all_11_0_3))
% 11.56/3.47 | (12) ! [v0] : ( ~ in(v0, all_11_0_3) | (ordinal(v0) & in(v0, ex_10_0_2)))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Introducing new symbol ex_15_0_4 defined by:
% 11.56/3.47 | (13) ex_15_0_4 = all_11_0_3
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating formula (7) with ex_15_0_4 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (14) ? [v0] : (( ~ ordinal(v0) | ~ in(v0, ex_15_0_4) | ~ in(v0, all_1_0_0)) & (in(v0, ex_15_0_4) | (ordinal(v0) & in(v0, all_1_0_0))))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating (14) with all_16_0_5 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (15) ( ~ ordinal(all_16_0_5) | ~ in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4) | ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)) & (in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4) | (ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Applying alpha-rule on (15) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (16) ~ ordinal(all_16_0_5) | ~ in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4) | ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 | (17) in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4) | (ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (16), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.47 | (18) ~ in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (17), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.47 | (19) in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Using (19) and (18) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.47 | (21) ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Applying alpha-rule on (21) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (22) ordinal(all_16_0_5)
% 11.56/3.47 | (23) in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating formula (11) with all_16_0_5 and discharging atoms ordinal(all_16_0_5), yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (24) ~ in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2) | in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (24), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.47 | (25) ~ in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | From (8) and (25) follows:
% 11.56/3.47 | (26) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Using (23) and (26) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.47 | (28) in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | From (13) and (18) follows:
% 11.56/3.47 | (29) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Using (28) and (29) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.47 | (19) in(all_16_0_5, ex_15_0_4)
% 11.56/3.47 | (32) ~ ordinal(all_16_0_5) | ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (32), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.47 | (26) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Instantiating formula (12) with all_16_0_5 yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (34) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3) | (ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2))
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (34), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.47 | (29) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | From (13) and (19) follows:
% 11.56/3.47 | (28) in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Using (28) and (29) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.47 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.47 | (38) ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Applying alpha-rule on (38) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (22) ordinal(all_16_0_5)
% 11.56/3.47 | (40) in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | From (8) and (40) follows:
% 11.56/3.47 | (23) in(all_16_0_5, all_1_0_0)
% 11.56/3.47 |
% 11.56/3.47 | Using (23) and (26) yields:
% 11.56/3.47 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.48 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.48 | (43) ~ ordinal(all_16_0_5)
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 | Instantiating formula (12) with all_16_0_5 yields:
% 11.56/3.48 | (34) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3) | (ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2))
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 +-Applying beta-rule and splitting (34), into two cases.
% 11.56/3.48 |-Branch one:
% 11.56/3.48 | (29) ~ in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 | From (13) and (19) follows:
% 11.56/3.48 | (28) in(all_16_0_5, all_11_0_3)
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 | Using (28) and (29) yields:
% 11.56/3.48 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.48 |-Branch two:
% 11.56/3.48 | (38) ordinal(all_16_0_5) & in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2)
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 | Applying alpha-rule on (38) yields:
% 11.56/3.48 | (22) ordinal(all_16_0_5)
% 11.56/3.48 | (40) in(all_16_0_5, ex_10_0_2)
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 | Using (22) and (43) yields:
% 11.56/3.48 | (20) $false
% 11.56/3.48 |
% 11.56/3.48 |-The branch is then unsatisfiable
% 11.56/3.48 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 11.56/3.48
% 11.56/3.48 2882ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------