TSTP Solution File: SWV150+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SWV150+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 : n021.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 22:55:07 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 13.34s 2.54s
% Output : Proof 16.37s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SWV150+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n021.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 : Tue Aug 29 04:14:29 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.60 ________ _____
% 0.19/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.19/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.19/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.60 (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.60 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.60
% 0.19/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.62/0.61 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 0.62/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 4.23/1.34 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 4.23/1.34 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 4.73/1.37 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 4.73/1.37 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 4.73/1.37 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 4.73/1.37 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 4.73/1.37 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 10.99/2.20 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.99/2.22 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.47/2.25 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 11.53/2.26 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.53/2.28 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 11.53/2.28 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.91/2.34 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.61/2.41 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 12.61/2.43 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 12.61/2.44 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 13.34/2.54 Prover 3: proved (1914ms)
% 13.34/2.54
% 13.34/2.54 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 13.34/2.54
% 13.34/2.54 Prover 6: stopped
% 13.34/2.54 Prover 0: stopped
% 13.34/2.54 Prover 5: stopped
% 13.34/2.54 Prover 2: stopped
% 13.76/2.57 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 13.76/2.57 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 13.76/2.57 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 13.76/2.57 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 13.76/2.57 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 14.49/2.69 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 14.81/2.69 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 14.81/2.71 Prover 1: Found proof (size 6)
% 14.81/2.71 Prover 1: proved (2091ms)
% 14.81/2.71 Prover 4: stopped
% 14.81/2.73 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 14.81/2.73 Prover 10: stopped
% 15.23/2.75 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 15.23/2.76 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 15.23/2.77 Prover 11: stopped
% 15.23/2.79 Prover 7: stopped
% 15.64/2.81 Prover 13: stopped
% 15.91/2.89 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 15.91/2.91 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 15.91/2.92 Prover 8: stopped
% 15.91/2.93
% 15.91/2.93 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 15.91/2.93
% 15.91/2.93 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 15.91/2.93 Assumptions after simplification:
% 15.91/2.93 ---------------------------------
% 15.91/2.93
% 15.91/2.93 (gauss_array_0020)
% 16.37/2.96 $i(s_worst7) & $i(tptp_float_0_001) & $i(n3) & ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : (
% 16.37/2.96 ~ (v1 = 0) & ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(s_worst7, n3) = v1 & leq(tptp_float_0_001,
% 16.37/2.96 tptp_float_0_001) = v0)
% 16.37/2.96
% 16.37/2.96 (reflexivity_leq)
% 16.37/2.96 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: int] : (v1 = 0 | ~ (leq(v0, v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0))
% 16.37/2.96
% 16.37/2.96 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 16.37/2.96 --------------------------------------------
% 16.37/2.96 const_array1_select, const_array2_select, defuse, finite_domain_0,
% 16.37/2.96 finite_domain_1, finite_domain_2, finite_domain_3, finite_domain_4,
% 16.37/2.96 finite_domain_5, gt_0_tptp_minus_1, gt_1_0, gt_1_tptp_minus_1, gt_2_0, gt_2_1,
% 16.37/2.96 gt_2_tptp_minus_1, gt_3_0, gt_3_1, gt_3_2, gt_3_tptp_minus_1, gt_4_0, gt_4_1,
% 16.37/2.96 gt_4_2, gt_4_3, gt_4_tptp_minus_1, gt_5_0, gt_5_1, gt_5_2, gt_5_3, gt_5_4,
% 16.37/2.96 gt_5_tptp_minus_1, gt_succ, irreflexivity_gt, leq_geq, leq_gt1, leq_gt2,
% 16.37/2.96 leq_gt_pred, leq_minus, leq_succ, leq_succ_gt, leq_succ_gt_equiv, leq_succ_succ,
% 16.37/2.96 lt_gt, matrix_symm_aba1, matrix_symm_aba2, matrix_symm_add, matrix_symm_inv,
% 16.37/2.96 matrix_symm_joseph_update, matrix_symm_sub, matrix_symm_trans,
% 16.37/2.96 matrix_symm_update_diagonal, pred_minus_1, pred_succ, sel2_update_1,
% 16.37/2.96 sel2_update_2, sel2_update_3, sel3_update_1, sel3_update_2, sel3_update_3,
% 16.37/2.96 succ_plus_1_l, succ_plus_1_r, succ_plus_2_l, succ_plus_2_r, succ_plus_3_l,
% 16.37/2.96 succ_plus_3_r, succ_plus_4_l, succ_plus_4_r, succ_plus_5_l, succ_plus_5_r,
% 16.37/2.96 succ_pred, succ_tptp_minus_1, successor_1, successor_2, successor_3,
% 16.37/2.96 successor_4, successor_5, sum_plus_base, sum_plus_base_float, totality,
% 16.37/2.96 transitivity_gt, transitivity_leq, ttrue, uniform_int_rand_ranges_hi,
% 16.37/2.96 uniform_int_rand_ranges_lo
% 16.37/2.96
% 16.37/2.96 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 16.37/2.96 ---------------------------------
% 16.37/2.96
% 16.37/2.96 Begin of proof
% 16.37/2.96 |
% 16.37/2.96 | ALPHA: (gauss_array_0020) implies:
% 16.37/2.96 | (1) $i(tptp_float_0_001)
% 16.37/2.96 | (2) ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & ~ (v0 = 0) &
% 16.37/2.96 | leq(s_worst7, n3) = v1 & leq(tptp_float_0_001, tptp_float_0_001) =
% 16.37/2.96 | v0)
% 16.37/2.96 |
% 16.37/2.97 | DELTA: instantiating (2) with fresh symbols all_51_0, all_51_1 gives:
% 16.37/2.97 | (3) ~ (all_51_0 = 0) & ~ (all_51_1 = 0) & leq(s_worst7, n3) = all_51_0 &
% 16.37/2.97 | leq(tptp_float_0_001, tptp_float_0_001) = all_51_1
% 16.37/2.97 |
% 16.37/2.97 | ALPHA: (3) implies:
% 16.37/2.97 | (4) ~ (all_51_1 = 0)
% 16.37/2.97 | (5) leq(tptp_float_0_001, tptp_float_0_001) = all_51_1
% 16.37/2.97 |
% 16.37/2.97 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (reflexivity_leq) with tptp_float_0_001, all_51_1,
% 16.37/2.97 | simplifying with (1), (5) gives:
% 16.37/2.97 | (6) all_51_1 = 0
% 16.37/2.97 |
% 16.37/2.97 | REDUCE: (4), (6) imply:
% 16.37/2.97 | (7) $false
% 16.37/2.97 |
% 16.37/2.97 | CLOSE: (7) is inconsistent.
% 16.37/2.97 |
% 16.37/2.97 End of proof
% 16.37/2.97 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 16.37/2.97
% 16.37/2.97 2367ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------