TSTP Solution File: KLE028+4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : KLE028+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 : n027.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 : Sun Jul 17 01:56:42 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 10.39s 1.76s
% Output : CNFRefutation 10.39s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.08/0.14 % Problem : KLE028+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.08/0.14 % 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 : n027.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 : Thu Jun 16 10:44:35 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.39 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.39 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_B00_00_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S00EN
% 0.14/0.39 # and selection function PSelectSmallestOrientable.
% 0.14/0.39 #
% 0.14/0.39 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.39 # Number of axioms: 27 Number of unprocessed: 27
% 0.14/0.39 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.14/0.39 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.14/0.39 # Hello from C++
% 0.14/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.14/0.39 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.14/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.14/0.39 # 27 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.14/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
% 0.14/0.39 # There are 3 start rule candidates:
% 0.14/0.39 # Found 13 unit axioms.
% 0.14/0.39 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.14/0.39 # 3 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.14/0.39 # 14 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.14/0.39 # 13 unit axiom clauses
% 0.14/0.39
% 0.14/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.14/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
% 0.14/0.39 # Returning from population with 10 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.14/0.39 # We now have 10 tableaux to operate on
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 10.39/1.76 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 10.39/1.76 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.39/1.76 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 10.39/1.76 # Begin clausification derivation
% 10.39/1.76
% 10.39/1.76 # End clausification derivation
% 10.39/1.76 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_27, negated_conjecture, (test(esk6_0))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (test(esk7_0))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (multiplication(X1,zero)=zero)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (multiplication(zero,X1)=zero)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (addition(X1,zero)=X1)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (multiplication(X1,one)=X1)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (addition(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (multiplication(one,X1)=X1)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (addition(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(X1,addition(X2,X3)))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (multiplication(multiplication(X1,X2),X3)=multiplication(X1,multiplication(X2,X3)))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (multiplication(X1,addition(X2,X3))=addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X1,X3)))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (multiplication(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(multiplication(X1,X3),multiplication(X2,X3)))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=addition(X2,X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (c(X1)=zero|test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (test(X1)|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=X2|~leq(X1,X2))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=one|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (leq(X1,X2)|addition(X1,X2)!=X2)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (multiplication(X1,X2)=zero|~complement(X2,X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (multiplication(X1,X2)=zero|~complement(X1,X2))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (complement(esk1_1(X1),X1)|~test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (complement(X1,c(X1))|~test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (c(X1)=X2|~complement(X1,X2)|~test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (complement(X1,X2)|addition(X2,X1)!=one|multiplication(X1,X2)!=zero|multiplication(X2,X1)!=zero)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (c(addition(X1,X2))=multiplication(c(X1),c(X2))|~test(X2)|~test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (c(multiplication(X1,X2))=addition(c(X1),c(X2))|~test(X2)|~test(X1))).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (~leq(addition(multiplication(esk6_0,multiplication(esk7_0,esk2_0)),addition(multiplication(esk6_0,multiplication(c(esk7_0),esk3_0)),addition(multiplication(c(esk6_0),multiplication(esk7_0,esk4_0)),multiplication(c(esk6_0),multiplication(c(esk7_0),esk5_0))))),addition(multiplication(esk7_0,multiplication(esk6_0,esk2_0)),addition(multiplication(esk7_0,multiplication(c(esk6_0),esk4_0)),addition(multiplication(c(esk7_0),multiplication(esk6_0,esk3_0)),multiplication(c(esk7_0),multiplication(c(esk6_0),esk5_0))))))|~leq(addition(multiplication(esk7_0,multiplication(esk6_0,esk2_0)),addition(multiplication(esk7_0,multiplication(c(esk6_0),esk4_0)),addition(multiplication(c(esk7_0),multiplication(esk6_0,esk3_0)),multiplication(c(esk7_0),multiplication(c(esk6_0),esk5_0))))),addition(multiplication(esk6_0,multiplication(esk7_0,esk2_0)),addition(multiplication(esk6_0,multiplication(c(esk7_0),esk3_0)),addition(multiplication(c(esk6_0),multiplication(esk7_0,esk4_0)),multiplication(c(esk6_0),multiplication(c(esk7_0),esk5_0)))))))).
% 10.39/1.76 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 10.39/1.76 # Begin printing tableau
% 10.39/1.76 # Found 7 steps
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (test(esk7_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (test(esk7_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_20])).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_118, plain, (~complement(esk7_0,zero)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_16])).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_196, plain, (multiplication(esk7_0,zero)!=zero), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_10])).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_197, plain, (multiplication(zero,esk7_0)!=zero), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_11])).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_117, plain, (c(esk7_0)=zero), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_117, ...])).
% 10.39/1.76 cnf(i_0_195, plain, (addition(zero,esk7_0)!=one), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_195, ...])).
% 10.39/1.76 # End printing tableau
% 10.39/1.76 # SZS output end
% 10.39/1.76 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 10.39/1.77 # Child (4145) has found a proof.
% 10.39/1.77
% 10.39/1.77 # Proof search is over...
% 10.39/1.77 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------