0.07/0.13	% Problem    : theBenchmark.p : TPTP v0.0.0. Released v0.0.0.
0.07/0.13	% 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   : n003.cluster.edu
0.13/0.34	Model      : x86_64 x86_64
0.13/0.34	CPUModel   : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
0.13/0.34	RAMPerCPU  : 8042.1875MB
0.13/0.34	OS         : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
0.13/0.34	% CPULimit   : 960
0.13/0.34	% WCLimit    : 120
0.13/0.34	% DateTime   : Tue Aug  9 04:20:06 EDT 2022
0.13/0.34	% CPUTime    : 
0.13/0.38	# No SInE strategy applied
0.13/0.38	# Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C02CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
0.13/0.38	# and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
0.13/0.38	#
0.13/0.38	# Presaturation interreduction done
0.13/0.38	# Number of axioms: 21 Number of unprocessed: 19
0.13/0.38	# Tableaux proof search.
0.13/0.38	# APR header successfully linked.
0.13/0.38	# Hello from C++
1.66/1.83	# The folding up rule is enabled...
1.66/1.83	# Local unification is enabled...
1.66/1.83	# Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
1.66/1.83	# 19 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
1.66/1.83	# Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
1.66/1.83	# There are 3 start rule candidates:
1.66/1.83	# Found 9 unit axioms.
1.66/1.83	# Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
1.66/1.83	# 3 start rule tableaux created.
1.66/1.83	# 10 extension rule candidate clauses
1.66/1.83	# 9 unit axiom clauses
1.66/1.83	
1.66/1.83	# Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
1.66/1.83	# There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
1.66/1.88	# Returning from population with 8 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
1.66/1.88	# We now have 8 tableaux to operate on
5.92/2.44	# There were 6 total branch saturation attempts.
5.92/2.44	# There were 2 of these attempts blocked.
5.92/2.44	# There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
5.92/2.44	# There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
5.92/2.44	# There were 3 total successful branch saturations.
5.92/2.44	# There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
5.92/2.44	# There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
5.92/2.44	# There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
5.92/2.44	# SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
5.92/2.44	# SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
5.92/2.44	# Begin clausification derivation
5.92/2.44	
5.92/2.44	# End clausification derivation
5.92/2.44	# Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_3, negated_conjecture, (queens_p)).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_17, plain, (le(esk1_0,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_21, plain, (le(esk2_0,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_18, plain, (le(s(esk1_0),esk2_0))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_16, plain, (le(s(n0),esk1_0))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_8, plain, (le(X1,s(X1)))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_7, plain, (minus(minus(s(n),X1),minus(s(n),X2))=minus(X2,X1))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_19, plain, (le(s(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),minus(s(n),esk1_0)))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_1, negated_conjecture, (~queens_q)).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_9, plain, (le(X1,X2)|~le(X1,X3)|~le(X3,X2))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_6, plain, (p(X1)!=p(X2)|~le(s(n0),X2)|~le(s(X2),X1)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_11, plain, (minus(X1,X2)=minus(X3,X4)|minus(X2,X4)!=minus(X1,X3))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_15, negated_conjecture, (plus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)|minus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)|p(minus(s(n),esk2_0))=p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_22, plain, (le(minus(s(n),X1),n)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(X1,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_13, plain, (minus(X1,X2)=minus(X3,X4)|plus(X4,X1)!=plus(X3,X2))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_23, plain, (le(s(n0),minus(s(n),X1))|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(X1,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_14, plain, (plus(X1,X2)=plus(X3,X4)|minus(X4,X2)!=minus(X1,X3))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_5, plain, (minus(p(X1),X1)!=minus(p(X2),X2)|~le(s(n0),X2)|~le(s(X2),X1)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_4, plain, (plus(p(X1),X1)!=plus(p(X2),X2)|~le(s(n0),X2)|~le(s(X2),X1)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
5.92/2.44	# End listing active clauses.  There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
5.92/2.44	# Begin printing tableau
5.92/2.44	# Found 6 steps
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_15, negated_conjecture, (plus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)|minus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)|p(minus(s(n),esk2_0))=p(minus(s(n),esk1_0))), inference(start_rule)).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_24, plain, (plus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_42, plain, (minus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)))=minus(esk2_0,esk1_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_11])).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_25, plain, (minus(p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)),esk1_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_25, ...])).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_26, plain, (p(minus(s(n),esk2_0))=p(minus(s(n),esk1_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_26, ...])).
5.92/2.44	cnf(i_0_62148, plain, (minus(esk2_0,p(minus(s(n),esk1_0)))=minus(esk1_0,p(minus(s(n),esk2_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_62148, ...])).
5.92/2.44	# End printing tableau
5.92/2.44	# SZS output end
5.92/2.44	# Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
5.92/2.45	# Child (12319) has found a proof.
5.92/2.45	
5.92/2.45	# Proof search is over...
5.92/2.45	# Freeing feature tree
5.92/2.45	EOF