TSTP Solution File: SWV065+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SWV065+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n016.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 22:54:46 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 13.29s 2.45s
% Output : Proof 16.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : SWV065+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n016.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 : Tue Aug 29 07:05:30 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34 % 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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.68/0.63 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 0.74/0.65 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 4.77/1.33 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 4.77/1.33 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 5.19/1.37 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 5.19/1.37 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 5.19/1.37 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 5.19/1.37 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 5.19/1.37 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 9.82/2.05 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.83/2.12 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 10.83/2.12 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.07/2.13 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.09/2.15 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.09/2.17 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.68/2.26 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.18/2.30 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 12.18/2.34 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 13.27/2.42 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 13.29/2.45 Prover 3: proved (1799ms)
% 13.29/2.45
% 13.29/2.45 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 13.29/2.45
% 13.29/2.45 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 13.29/2.45 Prover 6: stopped
% 13.29/2.45 Prover 2: stopped
% 13.29/2.45 Prover 5: stopped
% 13.29/2.46 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 13.29/2.46 Prover 0: stopped
% 13.29/2.46 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 13.29/2.46 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 13.29/2.46 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 14.50/2.61 Prover 1: Found proof (size 6)
% 14.50/2.61 Prover 1: proved (1967ms)
% 14.50/2.61 Prover 4: stopped
% 14.50/2.64 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 14.50/2.67 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 14.50/2.67 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 15.26/2.68 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 15.26/2.68 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 15.43/2.71 Prover 7: stopped
% 15.69/2.74 Prover 10: stopped
% 15.69/2.75 Prover 11: stopped
% 15.69/2.77 Prover 13: stopped
% 16.16/2.86 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 16.16/2.88 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 16.53/2.90 Prover 8: stopped
% 16.53/2.90
% 16.53/2.90 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 16.53/2.90
% 16.53/2.90 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 16.53/2.91 Assumptions after simplification:
% 16.53/2.91 ---------------------------------
% 16.53/2.91
% 16.53/2.91 (cl5_nebula_array_0006)
% 16.53/2.93 $i(n135300) & $i(pv53) & $i(pv10) & $i(n5) & $i(n1) & $i(n0) & ? [v0: $i] :
% 16.53/2.93 ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: int] : ( ~ (v2 = 0) & minus(n135300, n1) = v0 & minus(n5,
% 16.53/2.93 n1) = v1 & leq(pv53, v1) = 0 & leq(pv10, v0) = 0 & leq(n0, pv53) = 0 &
% 16.53/2.93 leq(n0, pv10) = 0 & leq(n0, n0) = v2 & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 16.53/2.93
% 16.53/2.93 (reflexivity_leq)
% 16.53/2.93 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (leq(v0, v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0))
% 16.53/2.93
% 16.53/2.93 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 16.53/2.93 --------------------------------------------
% 16.53/2.93 const_array1_select, const_array2_select, defuse, finite_domain_0,
% 16.53/2.93 finite_domain_1, finite_domain_2, finite_domain_3, finite_domain_4,
% 16.53/2.93 finite_domain_5, gt_0_tptp_minus_1, gt_135300_0, gt_135300_1, gt_135300_2,
% 16.53/2.93 gt_135300_3, gt_135300_4, gt_135300_5, gt_135300_tptp_minus_1, gt_1_0,
% 16.53/2.93 gt_1_tptp_minus_1, gt_2_0, gt_2_1, gt_2_tptp_minus_1, gt_3_0, gt_3_1, gt_3_2,
% 16.53/2.93 gt_3_tptp_minus_1, gt_4_0, gt_4_1, gt_4_2, gt_4_3, gt_4_tptp_minus_1, gt_5_0,
% 16.53/2.93 gt_5_1, gt_5_2, gt_5_3, gt_5_4, gt_5_tptp_minus_1, gt_succ, irreflexivity_gt,
% 16.53/2.93 leq_geq, leq_gt1, leq_gt2, leq_gt_pred, leq_minus, leq_succ, leq_succ_gt,
% 16.53/2.93 leq_succ_gt_equiv, leq_succ_succ, lt_gt, matrix_symm_aba1, matrix_symm_aba2,
% 16.53/2.93 matrix_symm_add, matrix_symm_inv, matrix_symm_joseph_update, matrix_symm_sub,
% 16.53/2.93 matrix_symm_trans, matrix_symm_update_diagonal, pred_minus_1, pred_succ,
% 16.53/2.93 sel2_update_1, sel2_update_2, sel2_update_3, sel3_update_1, sel3_update_2,
% 16.53/2.93 sel3_update_3, succ_plus_1_l, succ_plus_1_r, succ_plus_2_l, succ_plus_2_r,
% 16.53/2.93 succ_plus_3_l, succ_plus_3_r, succ_plus_4_l, succ_plus_4_r, succ_plus_5_l,
% 16.53/2.93 succ_plus_5_r, succ_pred, succ_tptp_minus_1, successor_1, successor_2,
% 16.53/2.93 successor_3, successor_4, successor_5, sum_plus_base, sum_plus_base_float,
% 16.53/2.93 totality, transitivity_gt, transitivity_leq, ttrue, uniform_int_rand_ranges_hi,
% 16.53/2.93 uniform_int_rand_ranges_lo
% 16.53/2.93
% 16.53/2.93 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 16.53/2.93 ---------------------------------
% 16.53/2.93
% 16.53/2.93 Begin of proof
% 16.53/2.93 |
% 16.53/2.93 | ALPHA: (cl5_nebula_array_0006) implies:
% 16.53/2.94 | (1) $i(n0)
% 16.53/2.94 | (2) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: int] : ( ~ (v2 = 0) &
% 16.53/2.94 | minus(n135300, n1) = v0 & minus(n5, n1) = v1 & leq(pv53, v1) = 0 &
% 16.53/2.94 | leq(pv10, v0) = 0 & leq(n0, pv53) = 0 & leq(n0, pv10) = 0 & leq(n0,
% 16.53/2.94 | n0) = v2 & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 | DELTA: instantiating (2) with fresh symbols all_57_0, all_57_1, all_57_2
% 16.53/2.94 | gives:
% 16.53/2.94 | (3) ~ (all_57_0 = 0) & minus(n135300, n1) = all_57_2 & minus(n5, n1) =
% 16.53/2.94 | all_57_1 & leq(pv53, all_57_1) = 0 & leq(pv10, all_57_2) = 0 & leq(n0,
% 16.53/2.94 | pv53) = 0 & leq(n0, pv10) = 0 & leq(n0, n0) = all_57_0 & $i(all_57_1)
% 16.53/2.94 | & $i(all_57_2)
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 | ALPHA: (3) implies:
% 16.53/2.94 | (4) ~ (all_57_0 = 0)
% 16.53/2.94 | (5) leq(n0, n0) = all_57_0
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (reflexivity_leq) with n0, all_57_0, simplifying
% 16.53/2.94 | with (1), (5) gives:
% 16.53/2.94 | (6) all_57_0 = 0
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 | REDUCE: (4), (6) imply:
% 16.53/2.94 | (7) $false
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 | CLOSE: (7) is inconsistent.
% 16.53/2.94 |
% 16.53/2.94 End of proof
% 16.53/2.94 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 16.53/2.94
% 16.53/2.94 2327ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------