TSTP Solution File: MGT034-2 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : MGT034-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% 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 : n029.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 22:10:31 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11 % Problem : MGT034-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 08:51:06 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___107_C36_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.19/0.36 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.19/0.36 #
% 0.19/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.36 # Number of axioms: 30 Number of unprocessed: 30
% 0.19/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.19/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.19/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.19/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.19/0.36 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.19/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.19/0.36 # 30 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.19/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 5 conjectures.
% 0.19/0.36 # There are 5 start rule candidates:
% 0.19/0.36 # Found 6 unit axioms.
% 0.19/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.19/0.36 # 5 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.19/0.36 # 24 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.19/0.36 # 6 unit axiom clauses
% 0.19/0.36
% 0.19/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.19/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 5
% 0.19/0.36 # Returning from population with 11 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.19/0.36 # We now have 11 tableaux to operate on
% 0.19/0.38 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.19/0.38 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.19/0.38 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.19/0.38 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.19/0.38 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.19/0.38 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.39
% 0.19/0.39 # End clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_56, negated_conjecture, (environment(sk1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_57, negated_conjecture, (in_environment(sk1,critical_point(sk1)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_59, negated_conjecture, (greater(critical_point(sk1),sk2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_58, negated_conjecture, (greater_or_equal(sk2,appear(efficient_producers,sk1)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_50, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_60, negated_conjecture, (~selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_49, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,X2)|~greater(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_42, plain, (in_environment(X1,start_time(X1))|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (X1=X2|greater(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (greater_or_equal(appear(first_movers,X1),start_time(X1))|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,critical_point(X1))|~in_environment(X1,critical_point(X1))|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_47, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X2))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~in_environment(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_44, plain, (in_environment(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X2,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~in_environment(X1,critical_point(X1))|~greater(critical_point(X1),X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_46, plain, (subpopulations(efficient_producers,first_movers,X1,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_41, plain, (in_environment(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X2,X3)|~greater_or_equal(X4,X2)|~in_environment(X1,X4)|~in_environment(X1,X3)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_52, hypothesis, (X1!=critical_point(X2)|~greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~environment(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|~greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_39, plain, (greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|~greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_55, hypothesis, (decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,X1),founding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_45, plain, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~greater(cardinality_at_time(first_movers,X2),zero)|~greater(cardinality_at_time(efficient_producers,X2),zero)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_53, hypothesis, (greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|X2!=critical_point(X3)|~greater(X1,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X3,X1)|~environment(X3))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (selection_favors(X1,X2,X3)|~greater(growth_rate(X1,X3),growth_rate(X2,X3))|~subpopulations(X2,X1,X4,X3)|~environment(X4))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (~decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,X1),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,X1),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,X1),founding_rate(efficient_producers,X1))))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_54, hypothesis, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X2,X3)|~greater_or_equal(X4,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X4)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X3)|~environment(X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_51, plain, (greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|~greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X2),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X2)),zero)|~greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X3))|~in_environment(X3,X2)|~decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~greater(X2,X1)|~environment(X3))).
% 0.19/0.39 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.19/0.39 # Found 9 steps
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_58, negated_conjecture, (greater_or_equal(sk2,appear(efficient_producers,sk1))), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_63, plain, (greater_or_equal(sk2,appear(efficient_producers,sk1))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_36])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_229, plain, (~in_environment(sk1,critical_point(sk1))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_57])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_231, plain, (~greater(critical_point(sk1),sk2)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_59])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_232, plain, (~environment(sk1)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_56])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_226, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,sk2),growth_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)),zero)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_49])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_227, plain, (~greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point(sk1)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point(sk1))),zero)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_227, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_230, plain, (~decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,sk2),growth_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_230, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_233, plain, (greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,sk2),growth_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)),zero)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_233, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 # End printing tableau
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS output end
% 0.19/0.39 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.19/0.39 # Child (26385) has found a proof.
% 0.19/0.39
% 0.19/0.39 # Proof search is over...
% 0.19/0.39 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------