TSTP Solution File: PUZ133+2 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : PUZ133+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.1.0.
% 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 18:11:16 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.34s 1.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.34s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : PUZ133+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % 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 : 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
% 0.19/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.19/0.34 % DateTime : Sun May 29 02:01:39 EDT 2022
% 0.19/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S2m
% 0.19/0.38 # and selection function SelectCQArNTNpEqFirst.
% 0.19/0.38 #
% 0.19/0.38 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.38 # Number of axioms: 22 Number of unprocessed: 20
% 0.19/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.19/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.19/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 0.79/0.95 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.79/0.95 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.79/0.95 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.79/0.95 # 20 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.79/0.95 # Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
% 0.79/0.95 # There are 3 start rule candidates:
% 0.79/0.95 # Found 9 unit axioms.
% 0.79/0.95 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.79/0.95 # 3 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.79/0.95 # 11 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.79/0.95 # 9 unit axiom clauses
% 0.79/0.95
% 0.79/0.95 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.79/0.95 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 5 total branch saturation attempts.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 5 total successful branch saturations.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 1.34/1.51 # There were 5 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 1.34/1.51 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.34/1.51 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.34/1.51 # Begin clausification derivation
% 1.34/1.51
% 1.34/1.51 # End clausification derivation
% 1.34/1.51 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_14, negated_conjecture, (queens_p)).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (le(esk1_0,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (le(esk2_0,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (le(s(n0),esk1_0))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (le(s(esk1_0),esk2_0))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (le(X1,s(X1)))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (minus(perm(X1),perm(X2))=minus(X2,X1))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (le(s(perm(esk2_0)),perm(esk1_0)))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_12, negated_conjecture, (~queens_q)).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_5, negated_conjecture, (minus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)|plus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)|p(perm(esk2_0))=p(perm(esk1_0)))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (le(X1,X2)|~le(X3,X2)|~le(X1,X3))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (le(perm(X1),n)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (perm(X1)=minus(s(n),X1)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (plus(X1,X2)=plus(X3,X4)|minus(X1,X3)!=minus(X4,X2))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (minus(X1,X2)=minus(X3,X4)|plus(X1,X4)!=plus(X2,X3))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (le(s(n0),perm(X1))|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (minus(X1,X2)=minus(X3,X4)|minus(X1,X3)!=minus(X2,X4))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (p(X1)!=p(X2)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(s(X1),X2)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (plus(p(X1),X1)!=plus(p(X2),X2)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(s(X1),X2)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (minus(p(X1),X1)!=minus(p(X2),X2)|~le(s(n0),X1)|~le(s(X1),X2)|~le(X2,n)|~le(X1,n))).
% 1.34/1.51 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 1.34/1.51 # Begin printing tableau
% 1.34/1.51 # Found 10 steps
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_5, negated_conjecture, (minus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)|plus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)|p(perm(esk2_0))=p(perm(esk1_0))), inference(start_rule)).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (p(perm(esk2_0))=p(perm(esk1_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_3])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_121, plain, (~le(s(perm(esk2_0)),perm(esk1_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_7])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_120, plain, (~le(s(n0),perm(esk2_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_18])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_211, plain, (~le(s(n0),esk1_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_11])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (minus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=minus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_24, ...])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (plus(p(perm(esk2_0)),esk2_0)=plus(p(perm(esk1_0)),esk1_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_25, ...])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_122, plain, (~le(perm(esk1_0),n)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_122, ...])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_123, plain, (~le(perm(esk2_0),n)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_123, ...])).
% 1.34/1.51 cnf(i_0_210, plain, (~le(esk1_0,perm(esk2_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_210, ...])).
% 1.34/1.51 # End printing tableau
% 1.34/1.51 # SZS output end
% 1.34/1.51 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 1.34/1.51 # Returning from population with 4 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 1.34/1.51 # We now have 4 tableaux to operate on
% 1.34/1.51 # Found closed tableau during pool population.
% 1.34/1.51 # Proof search is over...
% 1.34/1.51 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------