TSTP Solution File: SWW956+1 by Princess---230619
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Princess---230619
% Problem : SWW956+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v7.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% Computer : n028.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 00:51:49 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 17.30s 3.19s
% Output : Proof 17.94s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : SWW956+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v7.4.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Aug 27 18:16:09 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.60 ________ _____
% 0.20/0.60 ___ __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.60 __ /_/ /_ ___/_ /__ __ \ ___/ _ \_ ___/_ ___/
% 0.20/0.60 _ ____/_ / _ / _ / / / /__ / __/(__ )_(__ )
% 0.20/0.60 /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.60 (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.60 Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.60 Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.60 Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 Loading /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.62 Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 0: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 2: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 1: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 3: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 4: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 5: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.63 Prover 6: Options: -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 2.88/1.18 Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.88/1.18 Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 3.43/1.21 Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 3.43/1.21 Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 3.43/1.21 Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 3.43/1.21 Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 3.43/1.21 Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 6.46/1.68 Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.46/1.68 Prover 6: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.46/1.70 Prover 5: Proving ...
% 6.46/1.70 Prover 2: Proving ...
% 6.46/1.70 Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.46/1.73 Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 6.46/1.74 Prover 0: Proving ...
% 8.65/1.98 Prover 3: gave up
% 8.65/1.98 Prover 7: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 8.65/2.09 Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 8.65/2.13 Prover 1: gave up
% 8.65/2.15 Prover 8: Options: +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 9.80/2.20 Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 10.67/2.27 Prover 6: gave up
% 10.67/2.28 Prover 9: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1423531889
% 10.67/2.29 Prover 7: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 10.67/2.30 Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 10.67/2.31 Prover 9: Preprocessing ...
% 11.32/2.37 Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 11.60/2.40 Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 12.11/2.50 Prover 9: Constructing countermodel ...
% 15.91/2.97 Prover 8: gave up
% 15.91/2.98 Prover 10: Options: +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 16.24/3.04 Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 17.30/3.15 Prover 10: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 17.30/3.15 Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 7: Found proof (size 26)
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 7: proved (1172ms)
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 0: stopped
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 4: stopped
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 5: stopped
% 17.30/3.16 Prover 2: stopped
% 17.30/3.17 Prover 10: stopped
% 17.30/3.18 Prover 9: stopped
% 17.30/3.18
% 17.30/3.19 % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 17.30/3.19
% 17.62/3.19 % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 17.62/3.20 Assumptions after simplification:
% 17.62/3.20 ---------------------------------
% 17.62/3.20
% 17.62/3.20 (ax55)
% 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (constr_enc(v1, v0) = v2) | ~
% 17.62/3.22 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | constr_dec(v2, v0) = v1)
% 17.62/3.22
% 17.62/3.22 (ax62)
% 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (constr_dec(v0, v1) = v2) | ~
% 17.62/3.22 $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v1) | ~ pred_attacker(v0) |
% 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v2))
% 17.62/3.22
% 17.62/3.22 (ax76)
% 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v1) | pred_attacker(v0))
% 17.62/3.22
% 17.62/3.22 (ax78)
% 17.62/3.22 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 17.62/3.22 pred_attacker(v1) | pred_attacker(v0))
% 17.62/3.22
% 17.62/3.22 (ax81)
% 17.62/3.23 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_out_1(v0, v1) = v2) |
% 17.62/3.23 ~ $i(v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v2) | pred_attacker(v1))
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (ax82)
% 17.62/3.23 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~
% 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v0) | pred_attacker(v1))
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (ax89)
% 17.62/3.23 $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_G_8) & ? [v0: $i] : (tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8)
% 17.62/3.23 = v0 & $i(v0) & pred_attacker(v0))
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (ax90)
% 17.62/3.23 $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_Na) & $i(name_G_8) & ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ?
% 17.62/3.23 [v2: $i] : (tuple_A_out_2(v1) = v2 & constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = v0 &
% 17.62/3.23 constr_mod(v0, name_P_7) = v1 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) &
% 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v2))
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (ax91)
% 17.62/3.23 $i(name_objective) & $i(name_P_7) & $i(name_Na) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] :
% 17.62/3.23 ( ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ~ pred_attacker(v1) | ? [v2: $i] :
% 17.62/3.23 ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] : (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 &
% 17.62/3.23 constr_exp(v0, name_Na) = v2 & constr_mod(v2, name_P_7) = v3 &
% 17.62/3.23 constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) & $i(v2) &
% 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v5))) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (constr_exp(v0,
% 17.62/3.23 name_Na) = v1) | ~ $i(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] :
% 17.62/3.23 ? [v5: $i] : ((tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & ~ pred_attacker(v2)) |
% 17.62/3.23 (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 & constr_mod(v1, name_P_7) = v3 &
% 17.62/3.23 constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) &
% 17.62/3.23 pred_attacker(v5))))
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (co0)
% 17.62/3.23 $i(name_objective) & ~ pred_attacker(name_objective)
% 17.62/3.23
% 17.62/3.23 (function-axioms)
% 17.62/3.24 ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 17.62/3.24 (tuple_A_out_1(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_out_1(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 17.62/3.24 (tuple_B_in_1(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_B_in_1(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i]
% 17.62/3.24 : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_exp(v3, v2)
% 17.62/3.24 = v1) | ~ (constr_exp(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : !
% 17.62/3.24 [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v1) | ~
% 17.62/3.24 (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : !
% 17.62/3.24 [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (constr_enc(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_enc(v3, v2) =
% 17.62/3.24 v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 |
% 17.62/3.24 ~ (constr_dec(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_dec(v3, v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] :
% 17.62/3.24 ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (name_new0x2Dname(v2) = v1) | ~
% 17.62/3.24 (name_new0x2Dname(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1
% 17.62/3.24 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_in_3(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v2) = v1) |
% 17.62/3.24 ~ (tuple_A_out_2(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1
% 17.62/3.24 = v0 | ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0:
% 17.62/3.24 $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~ (tuple_B_in_2(v2) = v1) | ~
% 17.62/3.24 (tuple_B_in_2(v2) = v0)) & ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : (v1 =
% 17.62/3.24 v0 | ~ (tuple_B_out_3(v2) = v1) | ~ (tuple_B_out_3(v2) = v0))
% 17.62/3.24
% 17.62/3.24 Further assumptions not needed in the proof:
% 17.62/3.24 --------------------------------------------
% 17.62/3.24 ax0, ax1, ax10, ax11, ax12, ax13, ax14, ax15, ax16, ax17, ax18, ax19, ax2, ax20,
% 17.62/3.24 ax21, ax22, ax23, ax24, ax25, ax26, ax27, ax28, ax29, ax3, ax30, ax31, ax32,
% 17.62/3.24 ax33, ax34, ax35, ax36, ax37, ax38, ax39, ax4, ax40, ax41, ax42, ax43, ax44,
% 17.62/3.24 ax45, ax46, ax47, ax48, ax49, ax5, ax50, ax51, ax52, ax53, ax54, ax56, ax57,
% 17.62/3.24 ax58, ax59, ax6, ax60, ax61, ax63, ax64, ax65, ax66, ax67, ax68, ax69, ax7,
% 17.62/3.24 ax70, ax71, ax72, ax73, ax74, ax75, ax77, ax79, ax8, ax80, ax83, ax84, ax85,
% 17.62/3.24 ax86, ax87, ax88, ax9, ax92
% 17.62/3.24
% 17.62/3.24 Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 17.62/3.24 ---------------------------------
% 17.62/3.24
% 17.62/3.24 Begin of proof
% 17.62/3.24 |
% 17.62/3.24 | ALPHA: (ax89) implies:
% 17.62/3.24 | (1) ? [v0: $i] : (tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = v0 & $i(v0) &
% 17.62/3.24 | pred_attacker(v0))
% 17.62/3.24 |
% 17.62/3.24 | ALPHA: (ax90) implies:
% 17.62/3.25 | (2) $i(name_G_8)
% 17.62/3.25 | (3) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : (tuple_A_out_2(v1) = v2 &
% 17.62/3.25 | constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = v0 & constr_mod(v0, name_P_7) = v1 &
% 17.62/3.25 | $i(v2) & $i(v1) & $i(v0) & pred_attacker(v2))
% 17.62/3.25 |
% 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (ax91) implies:
% 17.62/3.25 | (4) $i(name_P_7)
% 17.62/3.25 | (5) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ( ~ (constr_exp(v0, name_Na) = v1) | ~
% 17.62/3.25 | $i(v0) | ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] : ? [v4: $i] : ? [v5: $i] :
% 17.62/3.25 | ((tuple_A_in_3(v0) = v2 & $i(v2) & ~ pred_attacker(v2)) |
% 17.62/3.25 | (tuple_A_out_4(v4) = v5 & constr_mod(v1, name_P_7) = v3 &
% 17.62/3.25 | constr_enc(name_objective, v3) = v4 & $i(v5) & $i(v4) & $i(v3) &
% 17.62/3.25 | pred_attacker(v5))))
% 17.62/3.25 |
% 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (co0) implies:
% 17.62/3.25 | (6) ~ pred_attacker(name_objective)
% 17.62/3.25 | (7) $i(name_objective)
% 17.62/3.25 |
% 17.62/3.25 | ALPHA: (function-axioms) implies:
% 17.62/3.25 | (8) ! [v0: $i] : ! [v1: $i] : ! [v2: $i] : ! [v3: $i] : (v1 = v0 | ~
% 17.62/3.25 | (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v1) | ~ (constr_mod(v3, v2) = v0))
% 17.62/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | DELTA: instantiating (1) with fresh symbol all_32_0 gives:
% 17.91/3.25 | (9) tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = all_32_0 & $i(all_32_0) &
% 17.91/3.25 | pred_attacker(all_32_0)
% 17.91/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | ALPHA: (9) implies:
% 17.91/3.25 | (10) pred_attacker(all_32_0)
% 17.91/3.25 | (11) tuple_A_out_1(name_P_7, name_G_8) = all_32_0
% 17.91/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | DELTA: instantiating (3) with fresh symbols all_34_0, all_34_1, all_34_2
% 17.91/3.25 | gives:
% 17.91/3.25 | (12) tuple_A_out_2(all_34_1) = all_34_0 & constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) =
% 17.91/3.25 | all_34_2 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_34_1 & $i(all_34_0) &
% 17.91/3.25 | $i(all_34_1) & $i(all_34_2) & pred_attacker(all_34_0)
% 17.91/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | ALPHA: (12) implies:
% 17.91/3.25 | (13) pred_attacker(all_34_0)
% 17.91/3.25 | (14) $i(all_34_1)
% 17.91/3.25 | (15) constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_34_1
% 17.91/3.25 | (16) constr_exp(name_G_8, name_Na) = all_34_2
% 17.91/3.25 | (17) tuple_A_out_2(all_34_1) = all_34_0
% 17.91/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (5) with name_G_8, all_34_2, simplifying with (2),
% 17.91/3.25 | (16) gives:
% 17.91/3.25 | (18) ? [v0: $i] : ? [v1: $i] : ? [v2: $i] : ? [v3: $i] :
% 17.91/3.25 | ((tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = v0 & $i(v0) & ~ pred_attacker(v0)) |
% 17.91/3.25 | (tuple_A_out_4(v2) = v3 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = v1 &
% 17.91/3.25 | constr_enc(name_objective, v1) = v2 & $i(v3) & $i(v2) & $i(v1) &
% 17.91/3.25 | pred_attacker(v3)))
% 17.91/3.25 |
% 17.91/3.25 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax78) with all_34_1, all_34_0, simplifying with
% 17.91/3.25 | (13), (14), (17) gives:
% 17.91/3.26 | (19) pred_attacker(all_34_1)
% 17.91/3.26 |
% 17.91/3.26 | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax81) with name_P_7, name_G_8, all_32_0,
% 17.91/3.26 | simplifying with (2), (4), (10), (11) gives:
% 17.91/3.26 | (20) pred_attacker(name_G_8)
% 17.91/3.26 |
% 17.91/3.26 | DELTA: instantiating (18) with fresh symbols all_46_0, all_46_1, all_46_2,
% 17.94/3.26 | all_46_3 gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | (21) (tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3 & $i(all_46_3) & ~
% 17.94/3.26 | pred_attacker(all_46_3)) | (tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0 &
% 17.94/3.26 | constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_46_2 &
% 17.94/3.26 | constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1 & $i(all_46_0) &
% 17.94/3.26 | $i(all_46_1) & $i(all_46_2) & pred_attacker(all_46_0))
% 17.94/3.26 |
% 17.94/3.26 | BETA: splitting (21) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 |
% 17.94/3.26 | Case 1:
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | (22) tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3 & $i(all_46_3) & ~
% 17.94/3.26 | | pred_attacker(all_46_3)
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | ALPHA: (22) implies:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (23) ~ pred_attacker(all_46_3)
% 17.94/3.26 | | (24) tuple_A_in_3(name_G_8) = all_46_3
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax82) with name_G_8, all_46_3, simplifying with
% 17.94/3.26 | | (2), (20), (23), (24) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (25) $false
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | CLOSE: (25) is inconsistent.
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | Case 2:
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | (26) tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0 & constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7)
% 17.94/3.26 | | = all_46_2 & constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1 &
% 17.94/3.26 | | $i(all_46_0) & $i(all_46_1) & $i(all_46_2) & pred_attacker(all_46_0)
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | ALPHA: (26) implies:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (27) pred_attacker(all_46_0)
% 17.94/3.26 | | (28) $i(all_46_2)
% 17.94/3.26 | | (29) $i(all_46_1)
% 17.94/3.26 | | (30) constr_enc(name_objective, all_46_2) = all_46_1
% 17.94/3.26 | | (31) constr_mod(all_34_2, name_P_7) = all_46_2
% 17.94/3.26 | | (32) tuple_A_out_4(all_46_1) = all_46_0
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_34_1, all_46_2, name_P_7, all_34_2,
% 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (15), (31) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (33) all_46_2 = all_34_1
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | REDUCE: (30), (33) imply:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (34) constr_enc(name_objective, all_34_1) = all_46_1
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax55) with all_34_1, name_objective, all_46_1,
% 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (7), (14), (34) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (35) constr_dec(all_46_1, all_34_1) = name_objective
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax76) with all_46_1, all_46_0, simplifying with
% 17.94/3.26 | | (27), (29), (32) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (36) pred_attacker(all_46_1)
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (ax62) with all_46_1, all_34_1, name_objective,
% 17.94/3.26 | | simplifying with (6), (14), (19), (29), (35), (36) gives:
% 17.94/3.26 | | (37) $false
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | | CLOSE: (37) is inconsistent.
% 17.94/3.26 | |
% 17.94/3.26 | End of split
% 17.94/3.26 |
% 17.94/3.26 End of proof
% 17.94/3.26 % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 17.94/3.26
% 17.94/3.26 2659ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------