TSTP Solution File: SWV204+1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : SWV204+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 : n004.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 22:55:20 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 17.39s 3.04s
% Output   : Proof 22.79s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12  % Problem  : SWV204+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.13  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n004.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 10:19:22 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.62  ________       _____
% 0.19/0.62  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.62  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.19/0.62  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.19/0.62  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.62  
% 0.19/0.62  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.62  (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.62  
% 0.19/0.62  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.62  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.62                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.62  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.62  
% 0.19/0.62  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.62  
% 0.19/0.62  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.19/0.63  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.19/0.65  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 5.85/1.52  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 5.85/1.52  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 6.07/1.57  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 12.12/2.34  Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 12.86/2.43  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 12.86/2.44  Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 12.86/2.46  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.86/2.46  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 13.19/2.47  Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 13.19/2.53  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 13.73/2.60  Prover 5: Proving ...
% 13.73/2.60  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 14.36/2.67  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 17.39/3.04  Prover 6: proved (2389ms)
% 17.39/3.04  
% 17.39/3.04  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 17.39/3.04  
% 17.39/3.04  Prover 0: stopped
% 17.39/3.04  Prover 3: stopped
% 17.39/3.05  Prover 2: stopped
% 17.39/3.06  Prover 5: stopped
% 17.39/3.07  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 17.39/3.07  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 17.39/3.07  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 17.39/3.07  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 17.39/3.07  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 17.99/3.21  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 17.99/3.23  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 17.99/3.24  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 17.99/3.24  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 19.02/3.26  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 20.34/3.43  Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 20.34/3.45  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 20.62/3.47  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 20.62/3.49  Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 20.62/3.52  Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 20.62/3.53  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 20.62/3.53  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 21.22/3.54  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 21.57/3.58  Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 21.57/3.61  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 1: Found proof (size 36)
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 1: proved (3066ms)
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 10: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 7: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 11: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 8: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 13: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  Prover 4: stopped
% 22.24/3.70  
% 22.24/3.70  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 22.24/3.70  
% 22.24/3.71  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 22.24/3.71  Assumptions after simplification:
% 22.24/3.71  ---------------------------------
% 22.24/3.71  
% 22.24/3.71    (finite_domain_0)
% 22.63/3.74    $i(n0) &  ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = n0 |  ~ (leq(n0, v0) = 0) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v1:
% 22.63/3.74        int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & leq(v0, n0) = v1))
% 22.63/3.74  
% 22.63/3.74    (finite_domain_2)
% 22.63/3.74    $i(n2) & $i(n1) & $i(n0) &  ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = n2 | v0 = n1 | v0 = n0 |  ~
% 22.63/3.74      (leq(v0, n2) = 0) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v1: int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & leq(n0, v0) =
% 22.63/3.74        v1))
% 22.63/3.74  
% 22.63/3.74    (quaternion_ds1_inuse_0015)
% 22.63/3.75    a_select3(u_defuse, n2, n0) = use & a_select3(u_defuse, n1, n0) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select3(u_defuse, n0, n0) = use & a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse, n5) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse, n4) = use & a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse, n3) =
% 22.63/3.75    use & a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse, n2) = use & a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse,
% 22.63/3.75      n1) = use & a_select2(xinit_noise_defuse, n0) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse, n5) = use & a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse, n4) =
% 22.63/3.75    use & a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse, n3) = use & a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse,
% 22.63/3.75      n2) = use & a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse, n1) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(xinit_mean_defuse, n0) = use & a_select2(xinit_defuse, n5) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(xinit_defuse, n4) = use & a_select2(xinit_defuse, n3) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(sigma_defuse, n5) = use & a_select2(sigma_defuse, n4) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(sigma_defuse, n3) = use & a_select2(sigma_defuse, n2) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(sigma_defuse, n1) = use & a_select2(sigma_defuse, n0) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(rho_defuse, n2) = use & a_select2(rho_defuse, n1) = use &
% 22.63/3.75    a_select2(rho_defuse, n0) = use & $i(z_defuse) & $i(n998) &
% 22.63/3.75    $i(xinit_noise_defuse) & $i(xinit_mean_defuse) & $i(xinit_defuse) &
% 22.63/3.75    $i(u_defuse) & $i(sigma_defuse) & $i(rho_defuse) & $i(use) & $i(n5) & $i(n4) &
% 22.63/3.75    $i(n3) & $i(n2) & $i(n1) & $i(n0) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :
% 22.63/3.75    (v2 = use |  ~ (a_select3(z_defuse, v0, v1) = v2) |  ~ $i(v1) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ?
% 22.63/3.75      [v3: any] :  ? [v4: any] :  ? [v5: any] :  ? [v6: any] : (leq(v1, n998) = v6
% 22.63/3.75        & leq(v0, n2) = v5 & leq(n0, v1) = v4 & leq(n0, v0) = v3 & ( ~ (v6 = 0) | 
% 22.63/3.75          ~ (v5 = 0) |  ~ (v4 = 0) |  ~ (v3 = 0)))) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] : 
% 22.63/3.75    ! [v2: $i] : (v2 = use |  ~ (a_select3(u_defuse, v0, v1) = v2) |  ~ $i(v1) | 
% 22.63/3.75      ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v3: any] :  ? [v4: any] :  ? [v5: any] :  ? [v6: any] :
% 22.63/3.75      (leq(v1, n998) = v6 & leq(v0, n2) = v5 & leq(n0, v1) = v4 & leq(n0, v0) = v3
% 22.63/3.75        & ( ~ (v6 = 0) |  ~ (v5 = 0) |  ~ (v4 = 0) |  ~ (v3 = 0)))) &  ? [v0: $i]
% 22.63/3.75    :  ? [v1: $i] : ( ~ (v1 = use) & a_select2(rho_defuse, v0) = v1 & leq(v0, n2)
% 22.63/3.75      = 0 & leq(n0, v0) = 0 & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 22.63/3.75  
% 22.63/3.75    (function-axioms)
% 22.79/3.76     ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] :  ! [v5:
% 22.79/3.76      $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_update3(v5, v4, v3, v2) = v1) |  ~
% 22.79/3.76      (tptp_update3(v5, v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2:
% 22.79/3.76      $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_update2(v4, v3, v2) =
% 22.79/3.76        v1) |  ~ (tptp_update2(v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (sum(v4, v3, v2) = v1) | 
% 22.79/3.76      ~ (sum(v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_const_array2(v4, v3, v2) = v1) | 
% 22.79/3.76      ~ (tptp_const_array2(v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] :  ! [v4: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (a_select3(v4, v3, v2) =
% 22.79/3.76        v1) |  ~ (a_select3(v4, v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (minus(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (minus(v3,
% 22.79/3.76          v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1
% 22.79/3.76      = v0 |  ~ (plus(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (plus(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_mmul(v3, v2) = v1)
% 22.79/3.76      |  ~ (tptp_mmul(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : 
% 22.79/3.76    ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_msub(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (tptp_msub(v3, v2) =
% 22.79/3.76        v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | 
% 22.79/3.76      ~ (tptp_madd(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (tptp_madd(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (dim(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~
% 22.79/3.76      (dim(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i]
% 22.79/3.76    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (tptp_const_array1(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (tptp_const_array1(v3,
% 22.79/3.76          v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1
% 22.79/3.76      = v0 |  ~ (a_select2(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (a_select2(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 22.79/3.76      $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 22.79/3.76      (uniform_int_rnd(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (uniform_int_rnd(v3, v2) = v0)) &  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v0: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3:
% 22.79/3.76      $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (geq(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (geq(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 22.79/3.76      MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i]
% 22.79/3.76    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (lt(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (lt(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 22.79/3.76      MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i]
% 22.79/3.76    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (leq(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (leq(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0:
% 22.79/3.76      MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i]
% 22.79/3.76    : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (gt(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (gt(v3, v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  !
% 22.79/3.76    [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (inv(v2) = v1) |  ~ (inv(v2) = v0)) & 
% 22.79/3.76    ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (trans(v2) = v1) |  ~
% 22.79/3.76      (trans(v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 22.79/3.76      (succ(v2) = v1) |  ~ (succ(v2) = v0)) &  ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2:
% 22.79/3.76      $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (pred(v2) = v1) |  ~ (pred(v2) = v0))
% 22.79/3.76  
% 22.79/3.76  Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 22.79/3.76  --------------------------------------------
% 22.79/3.76  const_array1_select, const_array2_select, defuse, finite_domain_1,
% 22.79/3.76  finite_domain_3, finite_domain_4, finite_domain_5, gt_0_tptp_minus_1, gt_1_0,
% 22.79/3.76  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,
% 22.79/3.76  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,
% 22.79/3.76  gt_5_1, gt_5_2, gt_5_3, gt_5_4, gt_5_tptp_minus_1, gt_998_0, gt_998_1, gt_998_2,
% 22.79/3.76  gt_998_3, gt_998_4, gt_998_5, gt_998_tptp_minus_1, gt_succ, irreflexivity_gt,
% 22.79/3.76  leq_geq, leq_gt1, leq_gt2, leq_gt_pred, leq_minus, leq_succ, leq_succ_gt,
% 22.79/3.76  leq_succ_gt_equiv, leq_succ_succ, lt_gt, matrix_symm_aba1, matrix_symm_aba2,
% 22.79/3.76  matrix_symm_add, matrix_symm_inv, matrix_symm_joseph_update, matrix_symm_sub,
% 22.79/3.76  matrix_symm_trans, matrix_symm_update_diagonal, pred_minus_1, pred_succ,
% 22.79/3.76  reflexivity_leq, sel2_update_1, sel2_update_2, sel2_update_3, sel3_update_1,
% 22.79/3.76  sel3_update_2, sel3_update_3, succ_plus_1_l, succ_plus_1_r, succ_plus_2_l,
% 22.79/3.76  succ_plus_2_r, succ_plus_3_l, succ_plus_3_r, succ_plus_4_l, succ_plus_4_r,
% 22.79/3.76  succ_plus_5_l, succ_plus_5_r, succ_pred, succ_tptp_minus_1, successor_1,
% 22.79/3.76  successor_2, successor_3, successor_4, successor_5, sum_plus_base,
% 22.79/3.76  sum_plus_base_float, totality, transitivity_gt, transitivity_leq, ttrue,
% 22.79/3.76  uniform_int_rand_ranges_hi, uniform_int_rand_ranges_lo
% 22.79/3.76  
% 22.79/3.76  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 22.79/3.76  ---------------------------------
% 22.79/3.76  
% 22.79/3.76  Begin of proof
% 22.79/3.76  | 
% 22.79/3.76  | ALPHA: (finite_domain_0) implies:
% 22.79/3.76  |   (1)   ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = n0 |  ~ (leq(n0, v0) = 0) |  ~ $i(v0) |  ? [v1:
% 22.79/3.76  |            int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & leq(v0, n0) = v1))
% 22.79/3.76  | 
% 22.79/3.76  | ALPHA: (finite_domain_2) implies:
% 22.79/3.76  |   (2)   ! [v0: $i] : (v0 = n2 | v0 = n1 | v0 = n0 |  ~ (leq(v0, n2) = 0) |  ~
% 22.79/3.76  |          $i(v0) |  ? [v1: int] : ( ~ (v1 = 0) & leq(n0, v0) = v1))
% 22.79/3.76  | 
% 22.79/3.76  | ALPHA: (quaternion_ds1_inuse_0015) implies:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (3)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n0) = use
% 22.79/3.77  |   (4)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n1) = use
% 22.79/3.77  |   (5)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n2) = use
% 22.79/3.77  |   (6)   ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] : ( ~ (v1 = use) & a_select2(rho_defuse, v0)
% 22.79/3.77  |          = v1 & leq(v0, n2) = 0 & leq(n0, v0) = 0 & $i(v1) & $i(v0))
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (7)   ! [v0: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v1: MultipleValueBool] :  ! [v2: $i] :
% 22.79/3.77  |         ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~ (leq(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (leq(v3, v2) = v0))
% 22.79/3.77  |   (8)   ! [v0: $i] :  ! [v1: $i] :  ! [v2: $i] :  ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |  ~
% 22.79/3.77  |          (a_select2(v3, v2) = v1) |  ~ (a_select2(v3, v2) = v0))
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | DELTA: instantiating (6) with fresh symbols all_54_0, all_54_1 gives:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (9)   ~ (all_54_0 = use) & a_select2(rho_defuse, all_54_1) = all_54_0 &
% 22.79/3.77  |        leq(all_54_1, n2) = 0 & leq(n0, all_54_1) = 0 & $i(all_54_0) &
% 22.79/3.77  |        $i(all_54_1)
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (10)   ~ (all_54_0 = use)
% 22.79/3.77  |   (11)  $i(all_54_1)
% 22.79/3.77  |   (12)  leq(n0, all_54_1) = 0
% 22.79/3.77  |   (13)  leq(all_54_1, n2) = 0
% 22.79/3.77  |   (14)  a_select2(rho_defuse, all_54_1) = all_54_0
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with all_54_1, simplifying with (11), (12)
% 22.79/3.77  |              gives:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (15)  all_54_1 = n0 |  ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(all_54_1, n0) = v0)
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with all_54_1, simplifying with (11), (13)
% 22.79/3.77  |              gives:
% 22.79/3.77  |   (16)  all_54_1 = n2 | all_54_1 = n1 | all_54_1 = n0 |  ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0
% 22.79/3.77  |             = 0) & leq(n0, all_54_1) = v0)
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | BETA: splitting (15) gives:
% 22.79/3.77  | 
% 22.79/3.77  | Case 1:
% 22.79/3.77  | | 
% 22.79/3.77  | |   (17)  all_54_1 = n0
% 22.79/3.77  | | 
% 22.79/3.77  | | REDUCE: (14), (17) imply:
% 22.79/3.77  | |   (18)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n0) = all_54_0
% 22.79/3.77  | | 
% 22.79/3.77  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with use, all_54_0, n0, rho_defuse,
% 22.79/3.77  | |              simplifying with (3), (18) gives:
% 22.79/3.77  | |   (19)  all_54_0 = use
% 22.79/3.77  | | 
% 22.79/3.77  | | REDUCE: (10), (19) imply:
% 22.79/3.77  | |   (20)  $false
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | CLOSE: (20) is inconsistent.
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | Case 2:
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | |   (21)   ~ (all_54_1 = n0)
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | BETA: splitting (16) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | Case 1:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | |   (22)  all_54_1 = n0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | REDUCE: (21), (22) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | |   (23)  $false
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent.
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | Case 2:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | |   (24)  all_54_1 = n2 | all_54_1 = n1 |  ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) &
% 22.79/3.78  | | |           leq(n0, all_54_1) = v0)
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | BETA: splitting (24) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | Case 1:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |   (25)  all_54_1 = n2
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | REDUCE: (14), (25) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |   (26)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n2) = all_54_0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with use, all_54_0, n2, rho_defuse,
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |              simplifying with (5), (26) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |   (27)  all_54_0 = use
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | REDUCE: (10), (27) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |   (28)  $false
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | CLOSE: (28) is inconsistent.
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | Case 2:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |   (29)  all_54_1 = n1 |  ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(n0, all_54_1)
% 22.79/3.78  | | | |           = v0)
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | BETA: splitting (29) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | Case 1:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (30)  all_54_1 = n1
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | REDUCE: (14), (30) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (31)  a_select2(rho_defuse, n1) = all_54_0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with use, all_54_0, n1, rho_defuse,
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |              simplifying with (4), (31) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (32)  all_54_0 = use
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | REDUCE: (10), (32) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (33)  $false
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | CLOSE: (33) is inconsistent.
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | Case 2:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (34)   ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = 0) & leq(n0, all_54_1) = v0)
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | DELTA: instantiating (34) with fresh symbol all_480_0 gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (35)   ~ (all_480_0 = 0) & leq(n0, all_54_1) = all_480_0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | ALPHA: (35) implies:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (36)   ~ (all_480_0 = 0)
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (37)  leq(n0, all_54_1) = all_480_0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (7) with 0, all_480_0, all_54_1, n0,
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |              simplifying with (12), (37) gives:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (38)  all_480_0 = 0
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | REDUCE: (36), (38) imply:
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | |   (39)  $false
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | CLOSE: (39) is inconsistent.
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | End of split
% 22.79/3.78  | | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | | End of split
% 22.79/3.78  | | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | | End of split
% 22.79/3.78  | | 
% 22.79/3.78  | End of split
% 22.79/3.78  | 
% 22.79/3.78  End of proof
% 22.79/3.78  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 22.79/3.78  
% 22.79/3.78  3164ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------