TSTP Solution File: GRP039-4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : GRP039-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% Computer : n008.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Sat Jul 16 09:04:07 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : GRP039-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Jun 13 19:22:37 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic C07_19_nc_SAT001_MinMin_rr
% 0.12/0.36 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.12/0.36 #
% 0.12/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.36 # Number of axioms: 17 Number of unprocessed: 17
% 0.12/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.12/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.12/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.12/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.12/0.36 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.12/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.12/0.36 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.12/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 4 conjectures.
% 0.12/0.36 # There are 4 start rule candidates:
% 0.12/0.36 # Found 10 unit axioms.
% 0.12/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.12/0.36 # 4 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.12/0.36 # 7 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.12/0.36 # 10 unit axiom clauses
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.12/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 4
% 0.12/0.36 # Returning from population with 16 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.12/0.36 # We now have 16 tableaux to operate on
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.40
% 0.19/0.40 # End clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (subgroup_member(b))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_33, negated_conjecture, (product(a,c,d))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_32, negated_conjecture, (product(b,inverse(a),c))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (subgroup_member(identity))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (product(X1,identity,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (product(identity,X1,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (product(X1,inverse(X1),identity))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (product(inverse(X1),X1,identity))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (product(X1,X2,multiply(X1,X2)))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_34, negated_conjecture, (~subgroup_member(d))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (subgroup_member(inverse(X1))|~subgroup_member(X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (subgroup_member(X1)|~subgroup_member(X2)|~subgroup_member(X3)|~product(X3,X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (subgroup_member(element_in_O2(X1,X2))|subgroup_member(X1)|subgroup_member(X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (X1=X2|~product(X3,X4,X2)|~product(X3,X4,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (subgroup_member(X1)|subgroup_member(X2)|product(X1,element_in_O2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (product(X1,X2,X3)|~product(X4,X2,X5)|~product(X6,X5,X3)|~product(X6,X4,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (product(X1,X2,X3)|~product(X4,X5,X3)|~product(X6,X5,X2)|~product(X1,X6,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.19/0.40 # Found 7 steps
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_33, negated_conjecture, (product(a,c,d)), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (product(a,c,d)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_27])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_87, plain, (subgroup_member(d)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_34])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_88, plain, (~subgroup_member(c)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_29])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_95, plain, (subgroup_member(d)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_34])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_89, plain, (~subgroup_member(a)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_89, ...])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_93, plain, (subgroup_member(element_in_O2(c,d))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_93, ...])).
% 0.19/0.40 # End printing tableau
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS output end
% 0.19/0.40 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.19/0.40 # Child (27890) has found a proof.
% 0.19/0.40
% 0.19/0.40 # Proof search is over...
% 0.19/0.40 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------