TSTP Solution File: SYN082+1 by Princess---230619

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Princess---230619
% Problem  : SYN082+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp
% Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s

% Computer : n027.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 03:26:32 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 3.30s 1.22s
% Output   : Proof 4.13s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : SYN082+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14  % Command  : princess -inputFormat=tptp +threads -portfolio=casc +printProof -timeoutSec=%d %s
% 0.13/0.35  % Computer : n027.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 : Sat Aug 26 19:10:50 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.64  ________       _____
% 0.20/0.64  ___  __ \_________(_)________________________________
% 0.20/0.64  __  /_/ /_  ___/_  /__  __ \  ___/  _ \_  ___/_  ___/
% 0.20/0.64  _  ____/_  /   _  / _  / / / /__ /  __/(__  )_(__  )
% 0.20/0.64  /_/     /_/    /_/  /_/ /_/\___/ \___//____/ /____/
% 0.20/0.64  
% 0.20/0.64  A Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic modulo Linear Integer Arithmetic
% 0.20/0.64  (2023-06-19)
% 0.20/0.64  
% 0.20/0.64  (c) Philipp Rümmer, 2009-2023
% 0.20/0.64  Contributors: Peter Backeman, Peter Baumgartner, Angelo Brillout, Zafer Esen,
% 0.20/0.64                Amanda Stjerna.
% 0.20/0.64  Free software under BSD-3-Clause.
% 0.20/0.64  
% 0.20/0.64  For more information, visit http://www.philipp.ruemmer.org/princess.shtml
% 0.20/0.64  
% 0.20/0.64  Loading /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p ...
% 0.20/0.65  Running up to 7 provers in parallel.
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 1: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1571432423
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 0: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1042961893
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 2: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMinimalAndEmpty -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1065072994
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 3: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1922548996
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 4: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=1868514696
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 5: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allMaximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1259561288
% 0.20/0.66  Prover 6: Options:  -triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none +reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximalOutermost -realRatSaturationRounds=0 -ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=never -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1399714365
% 1.75/1.00  Prover 4: Preprocessing ...
% 1.75/1.00  Prover 1: Preprocessing ...
% 2.17/1.04  Prover 0: Preprocessing ...
% 2.17/1.04  Prover 5: Preprocessing ...
% 2.17/1.04  Prover 3: Preprocessing ...
% 2.17/1.04  Prover 6: Preprocessing ...
% 2.17/1.04  Prover 2: Preprocessing ...
% 2.54/1.11  Prover 2: Proving ...
% 2.54/1.12  Prover 5: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.54/1.12  Prover 4: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.54/1.12  Prover 1: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.54/1.12  Prover 6: Proving ...
% 2.54/1.13  Prover 3: Constructing countermodel ...
% 2.54/1.16  Prover 0: Proving ...
% 3.30/1.22  Prover 3: proved (557ms)
% 3.30/1.22  
% 3.30/1.22  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.30/1.22  
% 3.30/1.22  Prover 5: proved (558ms)
% 3.57/1.22  
% 3.57/1.22  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.57/1.22  
% 3.57/1.22  Prover 7: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple +reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-236303470
% 3.57/1.22  Prover 0: stopped
% 3.57/1.22  Prover 6: stopped
% 3.57/1.22  Prover 2: proved (565ms)
% 3.57/1.22  
% 3.57/1.22  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.57/1.22  
% 3.57/1.23  Prover 8: Options:  +triggersInConjecture +genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=none -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-200781089
% 3.57/1.23  Prover 10: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=919308125
% 3.57/1.23  Prover 11: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms +tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation -boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=allUni -realRatSaturationRounds=1 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=all -randomSeed=-1509710984
% 3.57/1.23  Prover 13: Options:  +triggersInConjecture -genTotalityAxioms -tightFunctionScopes -clausifier=simple -reverseFunctionalityPropagation +boolFunsAsPreds -triggerStrategy=maximal -realRatSaturationRounds=0 +ignoreQuantifiers -constructProofs=always -generateTriggers=complete -randomSeed=1138197443
% 3.65/1.24  Prover 8: Preprocessing ...
% 3.65/1.24  Prover 11: Preprocessing ...
% 3.65/1.24  Prover 7: Preprocessing ...
% 3.65/1.24  Prover 13: Preprocessing ...
% 3.65/1.24  Prover 10: Preprocessing ...
% 3.65/1.26  Prover 10: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.65/1.27  Prover 8: Warning: ignoring some quantifiers
% 3.65/1.27  Prover 7: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.65/1.27  Prover 8: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.65/1.28  Prover 11: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.65/1.28  Prover 13: Constructing countermodel ...
% 3.65/1.28  Prover 10: Found proof (size 9)
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 10: proved (59ms)
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 8: stopped
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 13: stopped
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 7: stopped
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 4: Found proof (size 22)
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 4: proved (627ms)
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 1: stopped
% 3.65/1.29  Prover 11: stopped
% 3.65/1.29  
% 3.65/1.29  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 3.65/1.29  
% 3.65/1.29  % SZS output start Proof for theBenchmark
% 3.65/1.30  Assumptions after simplification:
% 3.65/1.30  ---------------------------------
% 3.65/1.30  
% 3.65/1.30    (pel60)
% 4.13/1.33     ? [v0: $i] :  ? [v1: $i] :  ? [v2: $i] : (f(v0) = v1 & $i(v2) & $i(v1) &
% 4.13/1.33      $i(v0) & ((big_f(v0, v2) &  ~ big_f(v0, v1) &  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~ $i(v3) |  ~
% 4.13/1.33            big_f(v3, v2) | big_f(v3, v1))) | (big_f(v0, v1) &  ! [v3: $i] : ( ~
% 4.13/1.33            $i(v3) |  ~ big_f(v0, v3) |  ? [v4: $i] : ($i(v4) & big_f(v4, v3) &  ~
% 4.13/1.33              big_f(v4, v1))))))
% 4.13/1.33  
% 4.13/1.33  Those formulas are unsatisfiable:
% 4.13/1.33  ---------------------------------
% 4.13/1.33  
% 4.13/1.33  Begin of proof
% 4.13/1.33  | 
% 4.13/1.33  | DELTA: instantiating (pel60) with fresh symbols all_3_0, all_3_1, all_3_2
% 4.13/1.33  |        gives:
% 4.13/1.34  |   (1)  f(all_3_2) = all_3_1 & $i(all_3_0) & $i(all_3_1) & $i(all_3_2) &
% 4.13/1.34  |        ((big_f(all_3_2, all_3_0) &  ~ big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] :
% 4.13/1.34  |            ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(v0, all_3_0) | big_f(v0, all_3_1))) |
% 4.13/1.34  |          (big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 4.13/1.34  |              big_f(all_3_2, v0) |  ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & big_f(v1, v0) &  ~
% 4.13/1.34  |                big_f(v1, all_3_1)))))
% 4.13/1.34  | 
% 4.13/1.34  | ALPHA: (1) implies:
% 4.13/1.34  |   (2)  $i(all_3_2)
% 4.13/1.34  |   (3)  $i(all_3_1)
% 4.13/1.34  |   (4)  (big_f(all_3_2, all_3_0) &  ~ big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] : (
% 4.13/1.34  |            ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(v0, all_3_0) | big_f(v0, all_3_1))) |
% 4.13/1.34  |        (big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(all_3_2,
% 4.13/1.34  |              v0) |  ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & big_f(v1, v0) &  ~ big_f(v1,
% 4.13/1.34  |                all_3_1))))
% 4.13/1.34  | 
% 4.13/1.34  | BETA: splitting (4) gives:
% 4.13/1.34  | 
% 4.13/1.34  | Case 1:
% 4.13/1.34  | | 
% 4.13/1.34  | |   (5)  big_f(all_3_2, all_3_0) &  ~ big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] :
% 4.13/1.34  | |        ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(v0, all_3_0) | big_f(v0, all_3_1))
% 4.13/1.34  | | 
% 4.13/1.34  | | ALPHA: (5) implies:
% 4.13/1.34  | |   (6)   ~ big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1)
% 4.13/1.34  | |   (7)  big_f(all_3_2, all_3_0)
% 4.13/1.34  | |   (8)   ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(v0, all_3_0) | big_f(v0,
% 4.13/1.34  | |            all_3_1))
% 4.13/1.34  | | 
% 4.13/1.34  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (8) with all_3_2, simplifying with (2), (6), (7)
% 4.13/1.34  | |              gives:
% 4.13/1.34  | |   (9)  $false
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | | CLOSE: (9) is inconsistent.
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | Case 2:
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | |   (10)  big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1) &  ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~
% 4.13/1.35  | |           big_f(all_3_2, v0) |  ? [v1: $i] : ($i(v1) & big_f(v1, v0) &  ~
% 4.13/1.35  | |             big_f(v1, all_3_1)))
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | | ALPHA: (10) implies:
% 4.13/1.35  | |   (11)  big_f(all_3_2, all_3_1)
% 4.13/1.35  | |   (12)   ! [v0: $i] : ( ~ $i(v0) |  ~ big_f(all_3_2, v0) |  ? [v1: $i] :
% 4.13/1.35  | |           ($i(v1) & big_f(v1, v0) &  ~ big_f(v1, all_3_1)))
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | | GROUND_INST: instantiating (12) with all_3_1, simplifying with (3), (11)
% 4.13/1.35  | |              gives:
% 4.13/1.35  | |   (13)  $false
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | | CLOSE: (13) is inconsistent.
% 4.13/1.35  | | 
% 4.13/1.35  | End of split
% 4.13/1.35  | 
% 4.13/1.35  End of proof
% 4.13/1.35  % SZS output end Proof for theBenchmark
% 4.13/1.35  
% 4.13/1.35  710ms
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------