TSTP Solution File: KLE116+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : KLE116+1 : 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 : n021.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 01:57:09 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 11.47s 1.86s
% Output : CNFRefutation 11.47s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : KLE116+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n021.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 : Thu Jun 16 11:25:00 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.20/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___100_C18_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.20/0.37 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.20/0.37 #
% 0.20/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.20/0.37 # Number of axioms: 20 Number of unprocessed: 20
% 0.20/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.20/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.20/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 0.20/0.38 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.20/0.38 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.20/0.38 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.20/0.38 # 20 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.20/0.38 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.20/0.38 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.20/0.38 # Found 18 unit axioms.
% 0.20/0.38 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.20/0.38 # 2 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.20/0.38 # 18 unit axiom clauses
% 0.20/0.38
% 0.20/0.38 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.20/0.38 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 0.20/0.38 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.20/0.38 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.20/0.38 # Returning from population with 29 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.20/0.38 # We now have 29 tableaux to operate on
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 11.47/1.86 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 11.47/1.86 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 11.47/1.86 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 11.47/1.86 # Begin clausification derivation
% 11.47/1.86
% 11.47/1.86 # End clausification derivation
% 11.47/1.86 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (multiplication(X1,one)=X1)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (multiplication(one,X1)=X1)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (addition(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (multiplication(antidomain(X1),X1)=zero)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (multiplication(X1,zero)=zero)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (multiplication(zero,X1)=zero)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (addition(X1,zero)=X1)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (multiplication(X1,coantidomain(X1))=zero)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (multiplication(multiplication(X1,X2),X3)=multiplication(X1,multiplication(X2,X3)))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (addition(antidomain(X1),antidomain(antidomain(X1)))=one)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (addition(coantidomain(X1),coantidomain(coantidomain(X1)))=one)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (addition(addition(X1,X2),X3)=addition(X1,addition(X2,X3)))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X1,X3))=multiplication(X1,addition(X2,X3)))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (addition(multiplication(X1,X2),multiplication(X3,X2))=multiplication(addition(X1,X3),X2))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (addition(antidomain(multiplication(X1,X2)),antidomain(multiplication(X1,antidomain(antidomain(X2)))))=antidomain(multiplication(X1,antidomain(antidomain(X2)))))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (addition(coantidomain(multiplication(X1,X2)),coantidomain(multiplication(coantidomain(coantidomain(X1)),X2)))=coantidomain(multiplication(coantidomain(coantidomain(X1)),X2)))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=addition(X2,X1))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_28, negated_conjecture, (multiplication(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(multiplication(esk1_0,antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(esk2_0))))))))))))),antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(multiplication(esk1_0,antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(esk3_0))))))))))))))!=antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(multiplication(esk1_0,antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(antidomain(multiplication(antidomain(antidomain(esk2_0)),antidomain(antidomain(esk3_0)))))))))))))))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (addition(X1,X2)=X2|~leq(X1,X2))).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (leq(X1,X2)|addition(X1,X2)!=X2)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (X53=X53)).
% 11.47/1.86 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 11.47/1.86 # Begin printing tableau
% 11.47/1.86 # Found 6 steps
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (multiplication(X3,one)=X3), inference(start_rule)).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (multiplication(X3,one)=X3), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_38])).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_79, plain, (multiplication(X5,one)!=X5), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_6])).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_77, plain, (addition(multiplication(X3,one),multiplication(X5,one))=addition(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_37])).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_101, plain, (addition(X3,X5)!=multiplication(addition(X3,X5),one)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_6])).
% 11.47/1.86 cnf(i_0_99, plain, (addition(multiplication(X3,one),multiplication(X5,one))=multiplication(addition(X3,X5),one)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_99, ...])).
% 11.47/1.86 # End printing tableau
% 11.47/1.86 # SZS output end
% 11.47/1.86 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 11.47/1.87 # Child (14597) has found a proof.
% 11.47/1.87
% 11.47/1.87 # Proof search is over...
% 11.47/1.87 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------