TSTP Solution File: REL024+2 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : REL024+2 : 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 : n005.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 : Mon Jul 18 19:21:05 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 9.93s 1.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.93s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.14 % Problem : REL024+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.14/0.15 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.15/0.36 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.15/0.36 % DateTime : Fri Jul 8 14:28:07 EDT 2022
% 0.15/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.40 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.40 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.15/0.40 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP.
% 0.15/0.40 #
% 0.15/0.40 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.40 # Number of axioms: 17 Number of unprocessed: 17
% 0.15/0.40 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.15/0.40 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.15/0.40 # Hello from C++
% 0.15/0.40 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.15/0.40 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.15/0.40 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.15/0.40 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.15/0.40 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.15/0.40 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.15/0.40 # Found 17 unit axioms.
% 0.15/0.40 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.15/0.40 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.15/0.40 # 17 unit axiom clauses
% 0.15/0.40
% 0.15/0.40 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.15/0.40 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 0.15/0.40 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.15/0.40 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.15/0.40 # Returning from population with 26 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.15/0.40 # We now have 26 tableaux to operate on
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 9.93/1.67 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 9.93/1.67 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.93/1.67 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 9.93/1.67 # Begin clausification derivation
% 9.93/1.67
% 9.93/1.67 # End clausification derivation
% 9.93/1.67 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (meet(X1,complement(X1))=zero)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))=meet(X1,X2))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (join(meet(X1,X2),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))=meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))=meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))=composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_17, negated_conjecture, (join(composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),esk3_0),composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),meet(esk2_0,esk3_0)))!=composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),esk3_0))).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (X41=X41)).
% 9.93/1.67 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 9.93/1.67 # Begin printing tableau
% 9.93/1.67 # Found 6 steps
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(start_rule)).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_23])).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_54, plain, (converse(converse(X3))!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_53, plain, (join(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=join(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_22])).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_72, plain, (join(X3,X5)!=converse(converse(join(X3,X5)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 9.93/1.67 cnf(i_0_70, plain, (join(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=converse(converse(join(X3,X5)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_70, ...])).
% 9.93/1.67 # End printing tableau
% 9.93/1.67 # SZS output end
% 9.93/1.67 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 10.28/1.68 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 10.28/1.68 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.28/1.68 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.28/1.68 # Begin clausification derivation
% 10.28/1.68
% 10.28/1.68 # End clausification derivation
% 10.28/1.68 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (meet(X1,complement(X1))=zero)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))=meet(X1,X2))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (join(meet(X1,X2),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))=meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))=meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))=composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_17, negated_conjecture, (join(composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),esk3_0),composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),meet(esk2_0,esk3_0)))!=composition(meet(esk1_0,converse(esk2_0)),esk3_0))).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (X41=X41)).
% 10.28/1.68 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 10.28/1.68 # Begin printing tableau
% 10.28/1.68 # Found 6 steps
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X3))=X3), inference(start_rule)).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (converse(converse(X3))=X3), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_25])).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (converse(converse(X5))!=X5), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_58, plain, (meet(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=meet(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_22])).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_72, plain, (meet(X3,X5)!=converse(converse(meet(X3,X5)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 10.28/1.68 cnf(i_0_70, plain, (meet(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=converse(converse(meet(X3,X5)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_70, ...])).
% 10.28/1.68 # End printing tableau
% 10.28/1.68 # SZS output end
% 10.28/1.68 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 10.28/1.68 # Child (24934) has found a proof.
% 10.28/1.68
% 10.28/1.68 # Proof search is over...
% 10.28/1.68 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------