TSTP Solution File: GRP358-1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : GRP358-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 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 : n025.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 09:06:07 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 9.42s 1.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.42s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.13 % Problem : GRP358-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.03/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n025.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 : 600
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Jun 13 22:51:39 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.20/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.20/0.38 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.20/0.38 #
% 0.20/0.38 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.20/0.38 # Number of axioms: 34 Number of unprocessed: 34
% 0.20/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.20/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.20/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 0.20/0.38 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.20/0.38 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.20/0.38 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.20/0.38 # 34 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.20/0.38 # Creating start rules for all 31 conjectures.
% 0.20/0.38 # There are 31 start rule candidates:
% 0.20/0.38 # Found 3 unit axioms.
% 0.20/0.38 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.20/0.38 # 31 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.20/0.38 # 31 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.20/0.38 # 3 unit axiom clauses
% 0.20/0.38
% 0.20/0.38 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 3.80/0.89 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.89 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 3.80/0.89 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.89 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 3.80/0.90 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.90 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 3.80/0.90 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.90 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 3.80/0.91 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.91 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 3.80/0.92 # Creating equality axioms
% 3.80/0.92 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 4.39/0.94 # Creating equality axioms
% 4.39/0.94 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 5.60/1.12 # Creating equality axioms
% 5.60/1.12 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 9.42/1.61 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 9.42/1.61 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.42/1.61 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.42/1.61 # Begin clausification derivation
% 9.42/1.61
% 9.42/1.61 # End clausification derivation
% 9.42/1.61 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (multiply(identity,X1)=X1)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (multiply(inverse(X1),X1)=identity)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (multiply(multiply(X1,X2),X3)=multiply(X1,multiply(X2,X3)))).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_45, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c3)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_47, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c4)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_48, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c5)=sk_c6|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_63, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c3)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_65, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c4)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_66, negated_conjecture, (inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c5)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_44, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c3,sk_c8)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_46, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c4,sk_c7)=sk_c6|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_49, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c5,sk_c8)=sk_c6|inverse(sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_39, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c3)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_51, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c3)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_57, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|inverse(sk_c3)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_41, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c4)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_53, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c4)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_59, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|inverse(sk_c4)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_42, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8|inverse(sk_c5)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_54, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c5)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_60, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|inverse(sk_c5)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_62, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c3,sk_c8)=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_64, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c4,sk_c7)=sk_c6|inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_67, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c5,sk_c8)=sk_c6|inverse(sk_c1)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_38, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c3,sk_c8)=sk_c7|multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_40, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c4,sk_c7)=sk_c6|multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_43, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c5,sk_c8)=sk_c6|multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_50, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c3,sk_c8)=sk_c7|multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_52, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c4,sk_c7)=sk_c6|multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_55, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c5,sk_c8)=sk_c6|multiply(sk_c8,sk_c2)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_56, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|multiply(sk_c3,sk_c8)=sk_c7)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_58, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|multiply(sk_c4,sk_c7)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_61, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c1,sk_c8)=sk_c2|multiply(sk_c5,sk_c8)=sk_c6)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_68, negated_conjecture, (multiply(sk_c8,multiply(X1,sk_c8))!=sk_c7|multiply(sk_c7,sk_c6)!=sk_c8|multiply(X2,sk_c8)!=sk_c6|multiply(X3,sk_c7)!=sk_c6|multiply(X4,sk_c8)!=sk_c7|inverse(sk_c8)!=sk_c6|inverse(X2)!=sk_c6|inverse(X3)!=sk_c7|inverse(X4)!=sk_c8|inverse(X1)!=sk_c8)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_500, plain, (X6=X6)).
% 9.42/1.61 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 9.42/1.61 # Begin printing tableau
% 9.42/1.61 # Found 8 steps
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_500, plain, (identity=identity), inference(start_rule)).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_579, plain, (identity=identity), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_504])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_659, plain, (multiply(identity,X3)!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_35])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_657, plain, (multiply(identity,multiply(identity,X3))=multiply(identity,X3)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_503])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_736, plain, (multiply(identity,X3)!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_35])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_734, plain, (multiply(identity,multiply(identity,X3))=X3), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_504])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_110131, plain, (multiply(identity,X1)!=X1), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_35])).
% 9.42/1.61 cnf(i_0_110129, plain, (multiply(multiply(identity,multiply(identity,X3)),multiply(identity,X1))=multiply(X3,X1)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_110129, ...])).
% 9.42/1.61 # End printing tableau
% 9.42/1.61 # SZS output end
% 9.42/1.61 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 9.42/1.61 # Child (15802) has found a proof.
% 9.42/1.61
% 9.42/1.61 # Proof search is over...
% 9.42/1.61 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------