TSTP Solution File: KLE012+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : KLE012+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 : n024.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 : Sun Jul 17 01:56:32 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 10.96s 10.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 10.96s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12 % Problem : KLE012+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.11/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Jun 16 14:00:03 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.12/0.37 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.12/0.37 #
% 0.12/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.37 # Number of axioms: 25 Number of unprocessed: 25
% 0.12/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.12/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.12/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 0.12/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.12/0.37 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.12/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.12/0.37 # 25 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.12/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
% 0.12/0.37 # There are 3 start rule candidates:
% 0.12/0.37 # Found 14 unit axioms.
% 0.12/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.12/0.37 # 3 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.12/0.37 # 11 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.12/0.37 # 14 unit axiom clauses
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.12/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
% 10.44/10.69 # Returning from population with 8 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 10.44/10.69 # We now have 8 tableaux to operate on
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 7 total branch saturation attempts.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 10.96/10.89 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 10.96/10.89 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.96/10.89 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.96/10.89 # Begin clausification derivation
% 10.96/10.89
% 10.96/10.89 # End clausification derivation
% 10.96/10.89 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (test(esk2_0))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (test(esk3_0))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (multiplication(X1,zero)=zero)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (multiplication(zero,X1)=zero)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (multiplication(X1,one)=X1)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (addition(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (multiplication(one,X1)=X1)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (addition(X1,zero)=X1)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (multiplication(multiplication(X1,X2),X3)=multiplication(X1,multiplication(X2,X3)))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X1,X3))=multiplication(X1,addition(X2,X3)))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X3,X2))=multiplication(addition(X1,X3),X2))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (addition(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(X1,addition(X2,X3)))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=addition(X2,X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_23, negated_conjecture, (multiplication(esk3_0,esk2_0)!=multiplication(esk2_0,esk3_0))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (c(X1)=zero|test(X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (test(X1)|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=X2|~leq(X1,X2))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=one|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (multiplication(X1,X2)=zero|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (multiplication(X1,X2)=zero|~complement(X1,X2))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (complement(esk1_1(X1),X1)|~test(X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (leq(X1,X2)|addition(X1,X2)!=X2)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (complement(X1,c(X1))|~test(X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (c(X1)=X2|~complement(X1,X2)|~test(X1))).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (complement(X1,X2)|addition(X2,X1)!=one|multiplication(X1,X2)!=zero|multiplication(X2,X1)!=zero)).
% 10.96/10.89 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 10.96/10.89 # Begin printing tableau
% 10.96/10.89 # Found 7 steps
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (test(esk2_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (test(esk2_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_21])).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_96, plain, (complement(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_18])).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_742642, plain, (multiplication(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))=zero), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_16])).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_930269, plain, (addition(esk2_0,c(esk2_0))!=one), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_742648])).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_930270, plain, (multiplication(c(esk2_0),esk2_0)!=zero), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_742649])).
% 10.96/10.89 cnf(i_0_930268, plain, (complement(c(esk2_0),esk2_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_930268, ...])).
% 10.96/10.89 # End printing tableau
% 10.96/10.89 # SZS output end
% 10.96/10.89 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 11.36/10.93 # Child (24340) has found a proof.
% 11.36/10.93
% 11.36/10.93 # Proof search is over...
% 11.36/10.93 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------