TSTP Solution File: SWC286+1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : SWC286+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 : n025.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 20:50:39 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 30.10s 5.32s
% Output   : Proof 50.47s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.14  % Problem  : SWC286+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.15  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 15:34:24 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.65  ________       _____
% 0.20/0.65  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.65  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.20/0.65  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.20/0.65  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.65  
% 0.20/0.65  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.65  (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.65  
% 0.20/0.65  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.65  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.65                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.65  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.65  
% 0.20/0.65  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.65  
% 0.20/0.65  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.66  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.68  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 5.72/1.70  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 5.72/1.70  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 7.03/1.81  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 7.03/1.81  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 7.03/1.81  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 7.03/1.82  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 7.03/1.84  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 18.66/3.67  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 22.59/4.02  Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 23.14/4.09  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 23.81/4.15  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 24.43/4.37  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 30.10/5.31  Prover 6: proved (4631ms)
% 30.10/5.31  
% 30.10/5.32  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 30.10/5.32  
% 30.10/5.32  Prover 5: stopped
% 30.10/5.33  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 30.10/5.33  Prover 3: stopped
% 30.10/5.34  Prover 2: stopped
% 30.10/5.35  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 30.10/5.35  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 30.10/5.35  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 34.49/5.59  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 34.49/5.62  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 34.49/5.64  Prover 0: stopped
% 34.49/5.64  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 35.21/5.68  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 35.36/5.71  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 35.66/5.74  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 35.66/5.76  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 38.04/6.07  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 38.04/6.11  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 38.04/6.16  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 41.31/6.51  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 41.59/6.56  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 41.59/6.79  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 7: Found proof (size 14)
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 7: proved (2319ms)
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 1: stopped
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 10: stopped
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 4: stopped
% 48.28/7.64  Prover 13: stopped
% 48.28/7.65  Prover 8: stopped
% 48.28/7.69  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 50.30/7.73  Prover 11: stopped
% 50.30/7.74  
% 50.30/7.74  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 50.30/7.74  
% 50.30/7.74  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 50.47/7.75  Assumptions after simplification:
% 50.47/7.75  ---------------------------------
% 50.47/7.75  
% 50.47/7.75    (ax68)
% 50.47/7.79    $i(nil) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v0, nil) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) | 
% 50.47/7.79      ~ ssItem(v0) | strictorderedP(v1))
% 50.47/7.79  
% 50.47/7.79    (ax69)
% 50.47/7.79    $i(nil) & strictorderedP(nil)
% 50.47/7.79  
% 50.47/7.79    (co1)
% 50.47/7.79    $i(nil) &  ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: $i] : ($i(v2) &
% 50.47/7.79      $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) &  ~ strictorderedP(v0) & ((v3 =
% 50.47/7.79          v0 & cons(v2, nil) = v0 & memberP(v1, v2) & ssItem(v2) &  ! [v4: $i] :
% 50.47/7.79          (v4 = v2 |  ~ $i(v4) |  ~ leq(v2, v4) |  ~ memberP(v1, v4) |  ~
% 50.47/7.79            ssItem(v4))) | (v1 = nil & v0 = nil)))
% 50.47/7.79  
% 50.47/7.79  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 50.47/7.79  --------------------------------------------
% 50.47/7.79  ax1, ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax16, ax17, ax18, ax19, ax2, ax20,
% 50.47/7.79  ax21, ax22, ax23, ax24, ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32,
% 50.47/7.79  ax33, ax34, ax35, ax36, ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax42, ax43, ax44,
% 50.47/7.79  ax45, ax46, ax47, ax48, ax49, ax5, ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax55, ax56,
% 50.47/7.79  ax57, ax58, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, ax62, ax63, ax64, ax65, ax66, ax67, ax7,
% 50.47/7.79  ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, ax74, ax75, ax76, ax77, ax78, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax81,
% 50.47/7.80  ax82, ax83, ax84, ax85, ax86, ax87, ax88, ax89, ax9, ax90, ax91, ax92, ax93,
% 50.47/7.80  ax94, ax95
% 50.47/7.80  
% 50.47/7.80  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 50.47/7.80  ---------------------------------
% 50.47/7.80  
% 50.47/7.80  Begin of proof
% 50.47/7.80  | 
% 50.47/7.80  | ALPHA: (ax68) implies:
% 50.47/7.80  |   (1)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (cons(v0, nil) = v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 50.47/7.80  |          ssItem(v0) | strictorderedP(v1))
% 50.47/7.80  | 
% 50.47/7.80  | ALPHA: (ax69) implies:
% 50.47/7.80  |   (2)  strictorderedP(nil)
% 50.47/7.80  | 
% 50.47/7.80  | ALPHA: (co1) implies:
% 50.47/7.80  |   (3)   ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] :  ? [v3: $i] : ($i(v2) &
% 50.47/7.80  |          $i(v1) & $i(v0) & ssList(v1) & ssList(v0) &  ~ strictorderedP(v0) &
% 50.47/7.80  |          ((v3 = v0 & cons(v2, nil) = v0 & memberP(v1, v2) & ssItem(v2) &  !
% 50.47/7.80  |              [v4: $i] : (v4 = v2 |  ~ $i(v4) |  ~ leq(v2, v4) |  ~ memberP(v1,
% 50.47/7.80  |                  v4) |  ~ ssItem(v4))) | (v1 = nil & v0 = nil)))
% 50.47/7.80  | 
% 50.47/7.80  | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_91_0, all_91_1, all_91_2,
% 50.47/7.80  |        all_91_3 gives:
% 50.47/7.81  |   (4)  $i(all_91_1) & $i(all_91_2) & $i(all_91_3) & ssList(all_91_2) &
% 50.47/7.81  |        ssList(all_91_3) &  ~ strictorderedP(all_91_3) & ((all_91_0 = all_91_3
% 50.47/7.81  |            & cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 & memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) &
% 50.47/7.81  |            ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 = all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 50.47/7.81  |              leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2, v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))) |
% 50.47/7.81  |          (all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil))
% 50.47/7.81  | 
% 50.47/7.81  | ALPHA: (4) implies:
% 50.47/7.81  |   (5)   ~ strictorderedP(all_91_3)
% 50.47/7.81  |   (6)  $i(all_91_1)
% 50.47/7.81  |   (7)  (all_91_0 = all_91_3 & cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 &
% 50.47/7.81  |          memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) & ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 =
% 50.47/7.81  |            all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2,
% 50.47/7.81  |              v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))) | (all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil)
% 50.47/7.81  | 
% 50.47/7.81  | PRED_UNIFY: (2), (5) imply:
% 50.47/7.81  |   (8)   ~ (all_91_3 = nil)
% 50.47/7.81  | 
% 50.47/7.81  | BETA: splitting (7) gives:
% 50.47/7.81  | 
% 50.47/7.81  | Case 1:
% 50.47/7.81  | | 
% 50.47/7.81  | |   (9)  all_91_0 = all_91_3 & cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3 &
% 50.47/7.81  | |        memberP(all_91_2, all_91_1) & ssItem(all_91_1) &  ! [v0: any] : (v0 =
% 50.47/7.81  | |          all_91_1 |  ~ $i(v0) |  ~ leq(all_91_1, v0) |  ~ memberP(all_91_2,
% 50.47/7.81  | |            v0) |  ~ ssItem(v0))
% 50.47/7.81  | | 
% 50.47/7.81  | | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (10)  ssItem(all_91_1)
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (11)  cons(all_91_1, nil) = all_91_3
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_91_1, all_91_3, simplifying with
% 50.47/7.82  | |              (5), (6), (10), (11) gives:
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (12)  $false
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | | CLOSE: (12) is inconsistent.
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | Case 2:
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (13)  all_91_2 = nil & all_91_3 = nil
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | | ALPHA: (13) implies:
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (14)  all_91_3 = nil
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | | REDUCE: (8), (14) imply:
% 50.47/7.82  | |   (15)  $false
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | | CLOSE: (15) is inconsistent.
% 50.47/7.82  | | 
% 50.47/7.82  | End of split
% 50.47/7.82  | 
% 50.47/7.82  End of proof
% 50.47/7.82  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 50.47/7.82  
% 50.47/7.82  7174ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------