TSTP Solution File: SWC257+1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : SWC257+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n013.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 20:50:30 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 19.11s 3.37s
% Output   : Proof 31.51s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : SWC257+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n013.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 : Mon Aug 28 16:30:02 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.62/0.61  ________       _____
% 0.62/0.61  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.62/0.61  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.62/0.61  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.62/0.61  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.62/0.61  
% 0.62/0.61  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.62/0.61  (2023-06-19)
% 0.62/0.61  
% 0.62/0.61  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.62/0.61  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.62/0.61                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.62/0.61  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.62/0.61  
% 0.62/0.61  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.62/0.61  
% 0.62/0.61  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.62/0.62  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.62/0.64  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 5.20/1.42  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.43  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.47  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.47  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.47  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.47  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 5.26/1.47  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 14.97/2.78  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 14.97/2.80  Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 14.97/2.81  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 15.63/2.86  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 16.13/2.93  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 19.11/3.36  Prover 6: proved (2727ms)
% 19.11/3.36  
% 19.11/3.37  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 19.11/3.37  
% 19.11/3.37  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 19.11/3.37  Prover 5: stopped
% 19.85/3.39  Prover 3: stopped
% 19.96/3.41  Prover 2: stopped
% 20.15/3.42  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 20.15/3.42  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 20.15/3.42  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 20.15/3.44  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 20.83/3.55  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 20.83/3.56  Prover 0: stopped
% 20.83/3.57  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 21.44/3.59  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 21.44/3.60  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 21.44/3.63  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 21.44/3.64  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 22.20/3.70  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 23.22/3.91  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 23.99/3.92  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 23.99/3.94  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 24.59/4.06  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 25.23/4.09  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 30.59/4.80  Prover 7: Found proof (size 14)
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 7: proved (1429ms)
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 4: stopped
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 10: stopped
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 8: stopped
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 1: stopped
% 30.59/4.82  Prover 13: stopped
% 31.18/4.92  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 31.18/4.94  Prover 11: stopped
% 31.18/4.94  
% 31.18/4.94  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 31.18/4.94  
% 31.18/4.94  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 31.18/4.95  Assumptions after simplification:
% 31.18/4.95  ---------------------------------
% 31.18/4.95  
% 31.18/4.95    (ax65)
% 31.51/4.97    $i(nil) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v0, nil) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) | 
% 31.51/4.97      ~ ssItem(v0) | totalorderedP(v1))
% 31.51/4.97  
% 31.51/4.97    (ax66)
% 31.51/4.97    $i(nil) & totalorderedP(nil)
% 31.51/4.97  
% 31.51/4.97    (co1)
% 31.51/4.97    $i(nil) &  ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: $i] : ($i(v2) &
% 31.51/4.97      $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) &  ~ totalorderedP(v0) & ((v3 = v0
% 31.51/4.97          & cons(v2, nil) = v0 & memberP(v1, v2) & ssItem(v2) &  ! [v4: $i] : (v4
% 31.51/4.97            = v2 |  ~ $i(v4) |  ~ leq(v2, v4) |  ~ memberP(v1, v4) |  ~
% 31.51/4.97            ssItem(v4))) | (v1 = nil & v0 = nil)))
% 31.51/4.97  
% 31.51/4.97  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 31.51/4.97  --------------------------------------------
% 31.51/4.97  ax1, ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax16, ax17, ax18, ax19, ax2, ax20,
% 31.51/4.97  ax21, ax22, ax23, ax24, ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32,
% 31.51/4.97  ax33, ax34, ax35, ax36, ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax42, ax43, ax44,
% 31.51/4.97  ax45, ax46, ax47, ax48, ax49, ax5, ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax55, ax56,
% 31.51/4.97  ax57, ax58, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, ax62, ax63, ax64, ax67, ax68, ax69, ax7,
% 31.51/4.97  ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, ax74, ax75, ax76, ax77, ax78, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax81,
% 31.51/4.97  ax82, ax83, ax84, ax85, ax86, ax87, ax88, ax89, ax9, ax90, ax91, ax92, ax93,
% 31.51/4.97  ax94, ax95
% 31.51/4.97  
% 31.51/4.97  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 31.51/4.97  ---------------------------------
% 31.51/4.97  
% 31.51/4.97  Begin of proof
% 31.51/4.98  | 
% 31.51/4.98  | ALPHA: (ax65) implies:
% 31.51/4.98  |   (1)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v0, nil) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 31.51/4.98  |          ssItem(v0) | totalorderedP(v1))
% 31.51/4.98  | 
% 31.51/4.98  | ALPHA: (ax66) implies:
% 31.51/4.98  |   (2)  totalorderedP(nil)
% 31.51/4.98  | 
% 31.51/4.98  | ALPHA: (co1) implies:
% 31.51/4.98  |   (3)   ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: $i] : ($i(v2) &
% 31.51/4.98  |          $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) &  ~ totalorderedP(v0) &
% 31.51/4.98  |          ((v3 = v0 & cons(v2, nil) = v0 & memberP(v1, v2) & ssItem(v2) &  !
% 31.51/4.98  |              [v4: $i] : (v4 = v2 |  ~ $i(v4) |  ~ leq(v2, v4) |  ~ memberP(v1,
% 31.51/4.98  |                  v4) |  ~ ssItem(v4))) | (v1 = nil & v0 = nil)))
% 31.51/4.98  | 
% 31.51/4.98  | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_91_0, all_91_1, all_91_2,
% 31.51/4.98  |        all_91_3 gives:
% 31.51/4.98  |   (4)  $i(all_91_1) & $i(all_91_2) & $i(all_91_3) & ssList(all_91_2) &
% 31.51/4.98  |        ssList(all_91_3) &  ~ totalorderedP(all_91_3) & ((all_91_0 = all_91_3 &
% 31.51/4.98  |            cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 & memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) &
% 31.51/4.98  |            ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 = all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 31.51/4.98  |              leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2, v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))) |
% 31.51/4.98  |          (all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil))
% 31.51/4.98  | 
% 31.51/4.98  | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 31.51/4.98  |   (5)   ~ totalorderedP(all_91_3)
% 31.51/4.98  |   (6)  $i(all_91_1)
% 31.51/4.99  |   (7)  (all_91_0 = all_91_3 & cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 &
% 31.51/4.99  |          memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) & ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 =
% 31.51/4.99  |            all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2,
% 31.51/4.99  |              v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))) | (all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil)
% 31.51/4.99  | 
% 31.51/4.99  | PRED_UNIFY: (2), (5) imply:
% 31.51/4.99  |   (8)   ~ (all_91_3 = nil)
% 31.51/4.99  | 
% 31.51/4.99  | BETA: splitting (7) gives:
% 31.51/4.99  | 
% 31.51/4.99  | Case 1:
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (9)  all_91_0 = all_91_3 & cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 &
% 31.51/4.99  | |        memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) & ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 =
% 31.51/4.99  | |          all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2,
% 31.51/4.99  | |            v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (10)  ssItem(all_91_1)
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (11)  cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_91_1, all_91_3, simplifying with
% 31.51/4.99  | |              (5), (6), (10), (11) gives:
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (12)  $false
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | CLOSE: (12) is inconsistent.
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | Case 2:
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (13)  all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | ALPHA: (13) implies:
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (14)  all_91_3 = nil
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | REDUCE: (8), (14) imply:
% 31.51/4.99  | |   (15)  $false
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | | CLOSE: (15) is inconsistent.
% 31.51/4.99  | | 
% 31.51/4.99  | End of split
% 31.51/4.99  | 
% 31.51/4.99  End of proof
% 31.51/4.99  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 31.51/4.99  
% 31.51/4.99  4378ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------