TSTP Solution File: GRP781-1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : GRP781-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v5.4.0.
% 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 : n018.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 09:08:26 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.83s 1.98s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.83s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : GRP781-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v5.4.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Tue Jun 14 04:05:58 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____102_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_PS_S2S
% 0.12/0.36 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP.
% 0.12/0.36 #
% 0.12/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.36 # Number of axioms: 6 Number of unprocessed: 6
% 0.12/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.12/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.12/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 1.68/1.85 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 1.68/1.85 # Local unification is enabled...
% 1.68/1.85 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 1.68/1.85 # 6 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 1.68/1.85 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 1.68/1.85 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 1.68/1.85 # Found 4 unit axioms.
% 1.68/1.85 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 1.68/1.85 # 2 extension rule candidate clauses
% 1.68/1.85 # 4 unit axiom clauses
% 1.68/1.85
% 1.68/1.85 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 1.68/1.85 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 1.83/1.98 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 1.83/1.98 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.83/1.98 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.83/1.98 # Begin clausification derivation
% 1.83/1.98
% 1.83/1.98 # End clausification derivation
% 1.83/1.98 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (m(m(X1,X2),X3)=m(X1,m(X2,X3)))).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (m(X1,m(X2,c(X2,X1)))=m(X2,X1))).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (m(X1,m(X2,m(X3,m(X2,X1))))=m(X2,m(X1,m(X3,m(X1,X2)))))).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_12, negated_conjecture, (m(c(x,z),c(y,z))!=c(m(x,y),z))).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=X2|m(X3,X1)!=m(X3,X2))).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (X1=X2|m(X1,X3)!=m(X2,X3))).
% 1.83/1.98 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 1.83/1.98 # Begin printing tableau
% 1.83/1.98 # Found 4 steps
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_12, negated_conjecture, (m(c(x,z),c(y,z))!=c(m(x,y),z)), inference(start_rule)).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (m(c(x,z),c(y,z))!=c(m(x,y),z)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (m(m(c(x,z),c(y,z)),X8)!=m(c(m(x,y),z),X8)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_9])).
% 1.83/1.98 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (m(X7,m(m(c(x,z),c(y,z)),X8))!=m(X7,m(c(m(x,y),z),X8))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_19, ...])).
% 1.83/1.98 # End printing tableau
% 1.83/1.98 # SZS output end
% 1.83/1.98 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 1.83/1.98 # Returning from population with 2 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 1.83/1.98 # We now have 2 tableaux to operate on
% 1.83/1.98 # Found closed tableau during pool population.
% 1.83/1.98 # Proof search is over...
% 1.83/1.98 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------