TSTP Solution File: MGT024+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : MGT024+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 : n032.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 22:10:28 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.11s 0.29s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.07 % Problem : MGT024+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.07/0.26 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.26 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.26 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.26 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.07/0.26 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.07/0.26 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.26 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.07/0.26 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 07:43:52 EDT 2022
% 0.07/0.26 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.28 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.28 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___107_C36_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.11/0.28 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.11/0.28 #
% 0.11/0.28 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.11/0.28 # Number of axioms: 21 Number of unprocessed: 21
% 0.11/0.28 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.11/0.28 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.11/0.28 # Hello from C++
% 0.11/0.28 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.11/0.28 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.11/0.28 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.11/0.28 # 21 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.11/0.28 # Creating start rules for all 6 conjectures.
% 0.11/0.28 # There are 6 start rule candidates:
% 0.11/0.28 # Found 3 unit axioms.
% 0.11/0.28 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.11/0.28 # 6 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.11/0.28 # 18 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.11/0.28 # 3 unit axiom clauses
% 0.11/0.28
% 0.11/0.28 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.11/0.28 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 6
% 0.11/0.28 # Returning from population with 13 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.11/0.28 # We now have 13 tableaux to operate on
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.11/0.29 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.11/0.29 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.11/0.29 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.11/0.29
% 0.11/0.29 # End clausification derivation
% 0.11/0.29 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (environment(esk1_0))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_19, negated_conjecture, (greater_or_equal(esk2_0,equilibrium(esk1_0)))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_20, negated_conjecture, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk1_0,esk2_0))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_18, negated_conjecture, (growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0)!=zero|growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)!=zero)).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (in_environment(X1,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (greater(number_of_organizations(X1,X2),zero)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_4, hypothesis, (constant(resources(X1,X2))|greater(equilibrium(X1),X2)|~greater(number_of_organizations(X1,X2),zero)|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (~greater_or_equal(X1,equilibrium(X2))|~greater(equilibrium(X2),X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_16, negated_conjecture, (~greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0))|~greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0),zero))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_17, negated_conjecture, (~greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0))|~greater(growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),zero))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_6, hypothesis, (constant(number_of_organizations(X1,X2))|~constant(resources(X1,X2))|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_7, hypothesis, (~decreases(number_of_organizations(X1,X2))|~decreases(resources(X1,X2))|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_5, hypothesis, (decreases(resources(X1,X2))|~greater(number_of_organizations(X1,X2),zero)|~greater(equilibrium(X1),X2)|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_12, hypothesis, (growth_rate(first_movers,X1)=zero|greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_8, hypothesis, (growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)=zero|greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_14, hypothesis, (growth_rate(first_movers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),zero)|greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_13, hypothesis, (growth_rate(first_movers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),zero)|greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_10, hypothesis, (growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),zero)|greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_9, hypothesis, (growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),zero)|greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_15, hypothesis, (growth_rate(first_movers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),zero)|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),zero)|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_11, hypothesis, (growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)=zero|greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),zero)|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),zero)|~constant(number_of_organizations(X2,X1))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.11/0.29 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.11/0.29 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.11/0.29 # Found 9 steps
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_18, negated_conjecture, (growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0)!=zero|growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)!=zero), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0)!=zero), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_12])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_224, plain, (~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk1_0,esk2_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_20])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_225, plain, (~environment(esk1_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_221, plain, (greater(zero,growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_17])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)!=zero), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_27, ...])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_222, plain, (greater(zero,growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_222, ...])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_223, plain, (~constant(number_of_organizations(esk1_0,esk2_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_223, ...])).
% 0.11/0.29 cnf(i_0_296, plain, (~greater(growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),zero)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_296, ...])).
% 0.11/0.29 # End printing tableau
% 0.11/0.29 # SZS output end
% 0.11/0.29 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.11/0.29 # Child (23161) has found a proof.
% 0.11/0.29
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.11/0.29 # There were 4 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.11/0.29 # Proof search is over...
% 0.11/0.29 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------