0.10/0.12 % Problem : theBenchmark.p : TPTP v0.0.0. Released v0.0.0. 0.10/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 1200 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 120 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jul 13 14:29:19 EDT 2021 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : 0.13/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied 0.13/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S 0.13/0.37 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP. 0.13/0.37 # 0.13/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done 0.13/0.37 # Number of axioms: 18 Number of unprocessed: 18 0.13/0.37 # Tableaux proof search. 0.13/0.37 # APR header successfully linked. 0.13/0.37 # Hello from C++ 0.13/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled... 0.13/0.37 # Local unification is enabled... 0.13/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... 0.13/0.37 # 18 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification 0.13/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures. 0.13/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates: 0.13/0.37 # Found 18 unit axioms. 0.13/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. 0.13/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created. 0.13/0.37 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses 0.13/0.37 # 18 unit axiom clauses 0.13/0.37 0.13/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. 0.13/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2 0.13/0.37 # Creating equality axioms 0.13/0.37 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses 0.13/0.37 # Returning from population with 28 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. 0.13/0.37 # We now have 28 tableaux to operate on 4.96/0.99 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. 4.96/0.99 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. 4.96/0.99 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. 4.96/0.99 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. 4.96/0.99 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. 4.96/0.99 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. 4.96/0.99 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. 4.96/0.99 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. 4.96/0.99 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 4.96/0.99 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 4.96/0.99 # Begin clausification derivation 4.96/0.99 4.96/0.99 # End clausification derivation 4.96/0.99 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (meet(X1,complement(X1))=zero)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))=meet(X1,X2))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_36, negated_conjecture, (meet(composition(sk1,X1),composition(sk1,complement(X1)))=zero)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (join(meet(X1,X2),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_32, 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))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_33, 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))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_34, 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))))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_35, negated_conjecture, (join(one,composition(converse(sk1),sk1))!=one)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_39, plain, (X4=X4)). 4.96/0.99 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! 4.96/0.99 # Begin printing tableau 4.96/0.99 # Found 6 steps 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(start_rule)). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_45])). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_80, plain, (converse(converse(X3))!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_31])). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_79, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=composition(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_42])). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_93, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))!=composition(X3,X5)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_79])). 4.96/0.99 cnf(i_0_91, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_91, ...])). 4.96/0.99 # End printing tableau 4.96/0.99 # SZS output end 4.96/0.99 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" 4.96/0.99 # Child (14043) has found a proof. 4.96/0.99 4.96/0.99 # Proof search is over... 4.96/0.99 # Freeing feature tree 4.96/1.00 EOF