TSTP Solution File: GRP183-4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : GRP183-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 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 : n004.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 : Sat Jul 16 09:05:19 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 11.63s 1.85s
% Output : CNFRefutation 11.63s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : GRP183-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 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 : n004.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 : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jun 14 04:10:54 EDT 2022
% 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: 19 Number of unprocessed: 19
% 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 # 19 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.13/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.13/0.37 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.13/0.37 # Found 19 unit axioms.
% 0.13/0.37 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.13/0.37 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.13/0.37 # 19 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 1
% 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
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 11.63/1.85 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 11.63/1.85 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 11.63/1.85 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 11.63/1.85 # Begin clausification derivation
% 11.63/1.85
% 11.63/1.85 # End clausification derivation
% 11.63/1.85 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_35, hypothesis, (inverse(identity)=identity)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_36, hypothesis, (inverse(inverse(X1))=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (multiply(identity,X1)=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (least_upper_bound(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (multiply(inverse(X1),X1)=identity)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2))=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2))=X1)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2),X3)=greatest_lower_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X2,X3)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3)=least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (multiply(multiply(X1,X2),X3)=multiply(X1,multiply(X2,X3)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_37, hypothesis, (multiply(inverse(X1),inverse(X2))=inverse(multiply(X2,X1)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3))=multiply(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X2,X3)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3))=multiply(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X3,X2))=multiply(greatest_lower_bound(X1,X3),X2))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X3,X2))=multiply(least_upper_bound(X1,X3),X2))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)=greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (least_upper_bound(X1,X2)=least_upper_bound(X2,X1))).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_38, negated_conjecture, (greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(identity,a),least_upper_bound(identity,inverse(a)))!=identity)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (X4=X4)).
% 11.63/1.85 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 11.63/1.85 # Begin printing tableau
% 11.63/1.85 # Found 6 steps
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_35, hypothesis, (inverse(identity)=identity), inference(start_rule)).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (inverse(identity)=identity), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_47])).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_85, plain, (inverse(identity)!=identity), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_35])).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_83, plain, (least_upper_bound(inverse(identity),inverse(identity))=least_upper_bound(identity,identity)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_43])).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_92, plain, (least_upper_bound(identity,identity)!=inverse(inverse(least_upper_bound(identity,identity)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_36])).
% 11.63/1.85 cnf(i_0_90, plain, (least_upper_bound(inverse(identity),inverse(identity))=inverse(inverse(least_upper_bound(identity,identity)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_90, ...])).
% 11.63/1.85 # End printing tableau
% 11.63/1.85 # SZS output end
% 11.63/1.85 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 11.63/1.86 # Child (29644) has found a proof.
% 11.63/1.86
% 11.63/1.86 # Proof search is over...
% 11.63/1.86 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------