TSTP Solution File: COL091-1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : COL091-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0.
% 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 : Fri Jul 15 00:24:50 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 0.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : COL091-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0.
% 0.04/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Tue May 31 06:39:36 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/0.39 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.39 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18__C_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.22/0.39 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.22/0.39 #
% 0.22/0.39 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/0.39 # Number of axioms: 32 Number of unprocessed: 32
% 0.22/0.39 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.22/0.39 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.22/0.39 # Hello from C++
% 0.22/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.22/0.39 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.22/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.22/0.39 # 32 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.22/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.22/0.39 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.22/0.39 # Found 8 unit axioms.
% 0.22/0.39 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.22/0.39 # 24 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.22/0.39 # 8 unit axiom clauses
% 0.22/0.39
% 0.22/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.22/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 0.22/0.39 # Returning from population with 8 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.22/0.39 # We now have 8 tableaux to operate on
% 0.22/0.40 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.22/0.40 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.22/0.40 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.22/0.40 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.22/0.40 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.22/0.40 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.22/0.40
% 0.22/0.40 # End clausification derivation
% 0.22/0.40 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_65, hypothesis, (member(pair(comb_app(combK,p),r),contract))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_42, plain, (member(combK,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (member(combS,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (combS!=combK)).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_63, plain, (~member(pair(combK,X1),contract))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combK)).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combS)).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_64, plain, (~member(pair(combS,X1),contract))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_41, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~member(comb_app(X2,X1),comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_49, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c1(X2,X3,X1))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_50, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c1(X2,X1,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_66, negated_conjecture, (comb_app(combK,X1)!=r|~member(pair(p,X1),contract))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X3,X1)!=comb_app(X4,X2))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X1,X3)!=comb_app(X2,X4))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_54, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X2,X1,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_45, plain, (member(pair(X1,X1),rtrancl(contract))|~member(X1,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_58, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c3(X2,X1,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_61, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_51, plain, (X1=comb_app(combK,X2)|~ap_contractE_c1(X1,X3,X2))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_52, plain, (member(ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3),comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_53, plain, (member(ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3),comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_44, plain, (member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb)|~member(X2,comb)|~member(X1,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_46, plain, (member(pair(comb_app(comb_app(combK,X1),X2),X1),contract)|~member(X2,comb)|~member(X1,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X2,X1,X3)),contract)|~ap_contractE_c4(X2,X1,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_57, plain, (member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3)),contract)|~ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_62, plain, (comb_app(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3))=X3|~ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (comb_app(ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3),X2)=X3|~ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_56, plain, (comb_app(comb_app(combS,ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3)),ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3))=X1|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3)|~member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),X3),contract))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_55, plain, (comb_app(comb_app(ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3),X2),comb_app(ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3),X2))=X3|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_47, plain, (member(pair(comb_app(comb_app(comb_app(combS,X1),X2),X3),comb_app(comb_app(X1,X3),comb_app(X2,X3))),contract)|~member(X3,comb)|~member(X2,comb)|~member(X1,comb))).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_472, plain, (X5=X5)).
% 0.22/0.40 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.22/0.40 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.22/0.40 # Found 4 steps
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_472, plain, (comb_app(X9,comb_app(X6,X10))=comb_app(X9,comb_app(X6,X10))), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_551, plain, (comb_app(X9,comb_app(X6,X10))=comb_app(X9,comb_app(X6,X10))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_38])).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_558, plain, (comb_app(X6,X10)=comb_app(X6,X10)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_37])).
% 0.22/0.40 cnf(i_0_566, plain, (X6=X6), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_566, ...])).
% 0.22/0.40 # End printing tableau
% 0.22/0.40 # SZS output end
% 0.22/0.40 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.22/0.40 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.22/0.40 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.22/0.40 # Child (6057) has found a proof.
% 0.22/0.40
% 0.22/0.40 # Proof search is over...
% 0.22/0.40 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------