TSTP Solution File: SWW677_1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SWW677_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n001.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 : Fri Sep 1 00:51:06 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 6.68s 1.83s
% Output : Proof 10.72s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SWW677_1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.11/0.34 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 19:00:33 EDT 2023
% 0.11/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.63 ________ _____
% 0.19/0.63 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.19/0.63 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.19/0.63 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.19/0.63 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.19/0.63 (2023-06-19)
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.19/0.63 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.19/0.63 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.19/0.63 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.19/0.63
% 0.19/0.63 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.19/0.65 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.19/0.67 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 3.10/1.25 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 5.36/1.62 Prover 3: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 5.36/1.64 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.62/1.65 Prover 6: Proving ...
% 5.62/1.66 Prover 1: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 5.62/1.66 Prover 4: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 5.62/1.69 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 5.62/1.69 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.62/1.71 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 5.62/1.73 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 6.30/1.75 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 6.68/1.83 Prover 6: proved (1157ms)
% 6.68/1.83
% 6.68/1.83 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 6.68/1.83
% 6.68/1.83 Prover 0: stopped
% 6.68/1.83 Prover 3: stopped
% 6.68/1.83 Prover 5: stopped
% 6.68/1.83 Prover 2: stopped
% 6.68/1.84 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 6.68/1.84 Prover 11: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 6.68/1.84 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 7.10/1.85 Prover 13: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 7.10/1.85 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 7.13/1.90 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 7.13/1.90 Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 7.50/1.94 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 7.78/1.95 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 7.78/1.95 Prover 1: gave up
% 7.78/1.96 Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 7.78/1.96 Prover 4: gave up
% 7.78/1.96 Prover 19: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=-1780594085
% 7.78/1.97 Prover 16: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=completeFrugal -randomSeed=-2043353683
% 7.78/2.01 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.78/2.01 Prover 11: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 7.78/2.03 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 7.78/2.03 Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.54/2.04 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.54/2.04 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.54/2.06 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.54/2.06 Prover 19: Preprocessing ...
% 8.54/2.06 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.54/2.06 Prover 16: Preprocessing ...
% 8.95/2.13 Prover 10: gave up
% 8.95/2.14 Prover 11: gave up
% 8.95/2.18 Prover 7: gave up
% 8.95/2.20 Prover 13: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.95/2.21 Prover 16: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.95/2.22 Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.95/2.22 Prover 16: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.95/2.23 Prover 19: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 8.95/2.24 Prover 19: Constructing countermodel ...
% 8.95/2.29 Prover 8: gave up
% 8.95/2.32 Prover 13: Found proof (size 19)
% 8.95/2.32 Prover 13: proved (463ms)
% 8.95/2.32 Prover 19: stopped
% 8.95/2.32 Prover 16: stopped
% 8.95/2.32
% 8.95/2.32 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 8.95/2.32
% 8.95/2.32 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 8.95/2.33 Assumptions after simplification:
% 8.95/2.33 ---------------------------------
% 8.95/2.33
% 8.95/2.33 (formula_004)
% 8.95/2.35 ? [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ! [v2: int] : (v2 = v0 | ~ ($lesseq(-1,
% 8.95/2.35 $difference($product(2, v0), v1))) | ~ ($lesseq(0, $difference(v1,
% 8.95/2.35 $product(2, v0)))) | ~ (div2(v1) = v2)) & ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int]
% 8.95/2.35 : ( ~ ($lesseq(2, $difference(v0, $product(2, v1)))) | ~ (div2(v0) = v1)) &
% 9.82/2.35 ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2, v1),
% 9.82/2.35 v0))) | ~ (div2(v0) = v1)) & ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ( ~
% 9.82/2.35 ($lesseq(2, $difference(v0, $product(2, v1)))) | ? [v2: int] : ( ~ (v2 =
% 9.82/2.35 v1) & div2(v0) = v2)) & ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(0,
% 9.82/2.35 $difference(v0, $product(2, v1)))) | ~ ($lesseq(-1,
% 9.82/2.36 $difference($product(2, v1), v0))) | div2(v0) = v1) & ? [v0: int] : ?
% 9.82/2.36 [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2, v1), v0))) | ? [v2: int]
% 9.82/2.36 : ( ~ (v2 = v1) & div2(v0) = v2))
% 9.82/2.36
% 9.82/2.36 (formula_007)
% 10.72/2.37 ? [v0: int] : ? [v1: int] : ? [v2: Array[Int,Int]] : ? [v3: int] : ? [v4:
% 10.72/2.37 int] : ? [v5: int] : ? [v6: int] : ? [v7: int] : ? [v8: Array[Int,Int]]
% 10.72/2.37 : ? [v9: int] : ? [v10: int] : ? [v11: int] : ($lesseq(1, $difference(v10,
% 10.72/2.37 v7)) & $lesseq(v6, v7) & $lesseq(0, v6) & $lesseq(1, $difference(v4,
% 10.72/2.37 v1)) & $lesseq(v0, v1) & $lesseq(0, v0) & length(v8) = v10 & length(v2)
% 10.72/2.37 = v4 & div2($sum(v7, v6)) = v11 & div2($sum(v1, v0)) = v5 &
% 10.72/2.37 Array[Int,Int](v8) & Array[Int,Int](v2) & sorted(v8, 0, $sum(v10, -1)) &
% 10.72/2.37 sorted(v2, 0, $sum(v4, -1)) & ~ (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(v8, v11) =
% 10.72/2.37 v9) & ! [v12: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(v9, v12))) | ~
% 10.72/2.37 ($lesseq(-1, v11)) | ~ (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(v8, v11) = v12))
% 10.72/2.37 & ! [v12: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(v9, v12)) | ~ ($lesseq(v11, v10)) | ~
% 10.72/2.37 (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(v8, v11) = v12)) & ! [v12: int] : ( ~
% 10.72/2.37 ($lesseq(v11, v10)) | ~ ($lesseq(-1, v11)) | ~
% 10.72/2.37 (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(v8, v11) = v12)) & ? [v12: int] : ( ~
% 10.72/2.37 (v12 = v3) & select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(v2, v5) = v12 & (($lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.37 $difference(v3, v12)) & $lesseq(v5, -2)) | ($lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.37 $difference(v12, v3)) & $lesseq(1, $difference(v5, v4))))))
% 10.72/2.37
% 10.72/2.37 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 10.72/2.37 --------------------------------------------
% 10.72/2.37 formula, formula_001, formula_002, formula_003, formula_005, formula_006
% 10.72/2.37
% 10.72/2.37 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 10.72/2.37 ---------------------------------
% 10.72/2.37
% 10.72/2.37 Begin of proof
% 10.72/2.37 |
% 10.72/2.37 | ALPHA: (formula_004) implies:
% 10.72/2.37 | (1) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference($product(2,
% 10.72/2.37 | v1), v0))) | ~ (div2(v0) = v1))
% 10.72/2.38 | (2) ! [v0: int] : ! [v1: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(2, $difference(v0,
% 10.72/2.38 | $product(2, v1)))) | ~ (div2(v0) = v1))
% 10.72/2.38 |
% 10.72/2.38 | DELTA: instantiating (formula_007) with fresh symbols all_25_0, all_25_1,
% 10.72/2.38 | all_25_2, all_25_3, all_25_4, all_25_5, all_25_6, all_25_7, all_25_8,
% 10.72/2.38 | all_25_9, all_25_10, all_25_11 gives:
% 10.72/2.38 | (3) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_1, all_25_4)) & $lesseq(all_25_5,
% 10.72/2.38 | all_25_4) & $lesseq(0, all_25_5) & $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_7,
% 10.72/2.38 | all_25_10)) & $lesseq(all_25_11, all_25_10) & $lesseq(0, all_25_11)
% 10.72/2.38 | & length(all_25_3) = all_25_1 & length(all_25_9) = all_25_7 &
% 10.72/2.38 | div2($sum(all_25_4, all_25_5)) = all_25_0 & div2($sum(all_25_10,
% 10.72/2.38 | all_25_11)) = all_25_6 & Array[Int,Int](all_25_3) &
% 10.72/2.38 | Array[Int,Int](all_25_9) & sorted(all_25_3, 0, $sum(all_25_1, -1)) &
% 10.72/2.38 | sorted(all_25_9, 0, $sum(all_25_7, -1)) & ~
% 10.72/2.38 | (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_3, all_25_0) = all_25_2) & !
% 10.72/2.39 | [v0: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_2, v0))) | ~
% 10.72/2.39 | ($lesseq(-1, all_25_0)) | ~
% 10.72/2.39 | (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_3, all_25_0) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 10.72/2.39 | int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(all_25_2, v0)) | ~ ($lesseq(all_25_0, all_25_1))
% 10.72/2.39 | | ~ (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_3, all_25_0) = v0)) & !
% 10.72/2.39 | [v0: int] : ( ~ ($lesseq(all_25_0, all_25_1)) | ~ ($lesseq(-1,
% 10.72/2.39 | all_25_0)) | ~ (select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_3,
% 10.72/2.39 | all_25_0) = v0)) & ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = all_25_8) &
% 10.72/2.39 | select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_9, all_25_6) = v0 &
% 10.72/2.39 | (($lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_8, v0)) & $lesseq(all_25_6, -2)) |
% 10.72/2.39 | ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, all_25_8)) & $lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.39 | $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7)))))
% 10.72/2.39 |
% 10.72/2.39 | ALPHA: (3) implies:
% 10.72/2.39 | (4) $lesseq(0, all_25_11)
% 10.72/2.39 | (5) $lesseq(all_25_11, all_25_10)
% 10.72/2.39 | (6) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_7, all_25_10))
% 10.72/2.39 | (7) div2($sum(all_25_10, all_25_11)) = all_25_6
% 10.72/2.39 | (8) ? [v0: int] : ( ~ (v0 = all_25_8) &
% 10.72/2.39 | select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_9, all_25_6) = v0 &
% 10.72/2.39 | (($lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_8, v0)) & $lesseq(all_25_6, -2)) |
% 10.72/2.39 | ($lesseq(1, $difference(v0, all_25_8)) & $lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.39 | $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7)))))
% 10.72/2.39 |
% 10.72/2.39 | DELTA: instantiating (8) with fresh symbol all_29_0 gives:
% 10.72/2.39 | (9) ~ (all_29_0 = all_25_8) & select:(Array[Int,Int]*Int)>Int(all_25_9,
% 10.72/2.39 | all_25_6) = all_29_0 & (($lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_8, all_29_0))
% 10.72/2.39 | & $lesseq(all_25_6, -2)) | ($lesseq(1, $difference(all_29_0,
% 10.72/2.39 | all_25_8)) & $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7))))
% 10.72/2.39 |
% 10.72/2.39 | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 10.72/2.39 | (10) ($lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_8, all_29_0)) & $lesseq(all_25_6, -2))
% 10.72/2.39 | | ($lesseq(1, $difference(all_29_0, all_25_8)) & $lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.39 | $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7)))
% 10.72/2.39 |
% 10.72/2.39 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (2) with $sum(all_25_10, all_25_11), all_25_6,
% 10.72/2.39 | simplifying with (7) gives:
% 10.72/2.39 | (11) $lesseq(-1, $difference($difference($product(2, all_25_6), all_25_10),
% 10.72/2.39 | all_25_11))
% 10.72/2.40 |
% 10.72/2.40 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (1) with $sum(all_25_10, all_25_11), all_25_6,
% 10.72/2.40 | simplifying with (7) gives:
% 10.72/2.40 | (12) $lesseq(0, $sum($difference(all_25_10, $product(2, all_25_6)),
% 10.72/2.40 | all_25_11))
% 10.72/2.40 |
% 10.72/2.40 | BETA: splitting (10) gives:
% 10.72/2.40 |
% 10.72/2.40 | Case 1:
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | (13) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_8, all_29_0)) & $lesseq(all_25_6, -2)
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | ALPHA: (13) implies:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (14) $lesseq(all_25_6, -2)
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (11), (14) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (15) $lesseq(3, $difference($product(-1, all_25_10), all_25_11))
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (5), (15) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (16) $lesseq(all_25_11, -2)
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | SIMP: (16) implies:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (17) $lesseq(all_25_11, -2)
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (4), (17) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (18) $false
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | CLOSE: (18) is inconsistent.
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | Case 2:
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | (19) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_29_0, all_25_8)) & $lesseq(1,
% 10.72/2.40 | | $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7))
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | ALPHA: (19) implies:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (20) $lesseq(1, $difference(all_25_6, all_25_7))
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (12), (20) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (21) $lesseq(2, $sum($difference(all_25_10, $product(2, all_25_7)),
% 10.72/2.40 | | all_25_11))
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (6), (21) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (22) $lesseq(4, $difference(all_25_11, all_25_10))
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | COMBINE_INEQS: (5), (22) imply:
% 10.72/2.40 | | (23) $false
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | | CLOSE: (23) is inconsistent.
% 10.72/2.40 | |
% 10.72/2.40 | End of split
% 10.72/2.40 |
% 10.72/2.40 End of proof
% 10.72/2.40 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 10.72/2.40
% 10.72/2.40 1770ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------