TSTP Solution File: PLA001-1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : PLA001-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 : n026.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 : Mon Jul 18 16:56:37 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.53s 1.76s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : PLA001-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n026.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 : Tue May 31 19:46:26 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___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04BN
% 0.20/0.37 # and selection function PSelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.20/0.37 #
% 0.20/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.20/0.37 # Number of axioms: 16 Number of unprocessed: 16
% 0.20/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.20/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.20/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 1.53/1.68 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 1.53/1.68 # Local unification is enabled...
% 1.53/1.68 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 1.53/1.68 # 16 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 1.53/1.68 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 1.53/1.68 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 1.53/1.68 # Found 12 unit axioms.
% 1.53/1.68 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 1.53/1.68 # 4 extension rule candidate clauses
% 1.53/1.68 # 12 unit axiom clauses
% 1.53/1.68
% 1.53/1.68 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 1.53/1.68 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 1.53/1.76 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 1.53/1.76 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.53/1.76 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.53/1.76 # Begin clausification derivation
% 1.53/1.76
% 1.53/1.76 # End clausification derivation
% 1.53/1.76 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_30, hypothesis, (next_to(omaha,desMoines))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_21, hypothesis, (next_to(winnemucca,elko))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_22, hypothesis, (next_to(elko,saltLakeCity))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_23, hypothesis, (next_to(saltLakeCity,rockSprings))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_24, hypothesis, (next_to(rockSprings,laramie))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_25, hypothesis, (next_to(laramie,cheyenne))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_26, hypothesis, (next_to(cheyenne,northPlatte))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_27, hypothesis, (next_to(northPlatte,grandIsland))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_28, hypothesis, (next_to(grandIsland,lincoln))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_29, hypothesis, (next_to(lincoln,omaha))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_31, hypothesis, (at(cheyenne,none,start,initial_situation))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_32, negated_conjecture, (~at(desMoines,s(none),X1,X2))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (at(X1,X2,s(X3),wait_at(X4))|~at(X1,X2,X3,X4))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (at(X1,s(X2),s(X3),buy(X4))|~at(X1,X2,X3,X4))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (at(X1,X2,s(s(X3)),drive(X1,X4))|~next_to(X1,X5)|~at(X5,X2,X3,X4))).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (at(X1,X2,s(s(X3)),drive(X1,X4))|~next_to(X5,X1)|~at(X5,X2,X3,X4))).
% 1.53/1.76 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 1.53/1.76 # Begin printing tableau
% 1.53/1.76 # Found 5 steps
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_32, negated_conjecture, (~at(desMoines,s(none),s(s(s(X7))),drive(desMoines,wait_at(X10)))), inference(start_rule)).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (~at(desMoines,s(none),s(s(s(X7))),drive(desMoines,wait_at(X10)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_17])).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_42, plain, (~next_to(omaha,desMoines)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_30])).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (~at(omaha,s(none),s(X7),wait_at(X10))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_19])).
% 1.53/1.76 cnf(i_0_45, plain, (~at(omaha,s(none),X7,X10)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_45, ...])).
% 1.53/1.76 # End printing tableau
% 1.53/1.76 # SZS output end
% 1.53/1.76 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 1.53/1.76 # Returning from population with 4 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 1.53/1.76 # We now have 4 tableaux to operate on
% 1.53/1.76 # Found closed tableau during pool population.
% 1.53/1.76 # Proof search is over...
% 1.53/1.76 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------