TSTP Solution File: MGT022+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : MGT022+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 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 : n025.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 22:10:26 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.35s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.09/0.11 % Problem : MGT022+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.09/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 11:36:05 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.34 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.34 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.13/0.34 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.13/0.34 #
% 0.13/0.34 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.34 # Number of axioms: 10 Number of unprocessed: 10
% 0.13/0.34 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.13/0.34 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.13/0.34 # Hello from C++
% 0.13/0.34 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.13/0.34 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.13/0.34 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.13/0.34 # 10 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.13/0.34 # Creating start rules for all 6 conjectures.
% 0.13/0.34 # There are 6 start rule candidates:
% 0.13/0.34 # Found 3 unit axioms.
% 0.13/0.34 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.13/0.34 # 6 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.13/0.34 # 7 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.13/0.34 # 3 unit axiom clauses
% 0.13/0.34
% 0.13/0.34 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.13/0.34 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 6
% 0.13/0.34 # Returning from population with 11 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.13/0.34 # We now have 11 tableaux to operate on
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.13/0.35 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.13/0.35 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.13/0.35 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.13/0.35 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.13/0.35
% 0.13/0.35 # End clausification derivation
% 0.13/0.35 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_10, negated_conjecture, (environment(esk1_0))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_9, negated_conjecture, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk1_0,esk2_0))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_4, hypothesis, (greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_8, negated_conjecture, (decreases(resources(esk1_0,esk2_0))|constant(resources(esk1_0,esk2_0)))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_6, negated_conjecture, (constant(resources(esk1_0,esk2_0))|~increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0))))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_5, negated_conjecture, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))|~increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0))))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~decreases(X1)|~constant(X1))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_7, negated_conjecture, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))|decreases(resources(esk1_0,esk2_0)))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_2, hypothesis, (constant(difference(disbanding_rate(X1,X2),disbanding_rate(X3,X2)))|~greater(resilience(X3),resilience(X1))|~subpopulations(X1,X3,X4,X2)|~environment(X4)|~constant(resources(X4,X2)))).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_3, hypothesis, (increases(difference(disbanding_rate(X1,X2),disbanding_rate(X3,X2)))|~greater(resilience(X3),resilience(X1))|~subpopulations(X1,X3,X4,X2)|~environment(X4)|~decreases(resources(X4,X2)))).
% 0.13/0.35 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.13/0.35 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.13/0.35 # Found 8 steps
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_5, negated_conjecture, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))|~increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_1])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_62, plain, (~constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_2])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_144, plain, (~greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_4])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_145, plain, (~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk1_0,esk2_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_9])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_146, plain, (~environment(esk1_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_10])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (~increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_14, ...])).
% 0.13/0.35 cnf(i_0_147, plain, (~constant(resources(esk1_0,esk2_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_147, ...])).
% 0.13/0.35 # End printing tableau
% 0.13/0.35 # SZS output end
% 0.13/0.35 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.13/0.35 # Child (3097) has found a proof.
% 0.13/0.35
% 0.13/0.35 # Proof search is over...
% 0.13/0.35 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------