TSTP Solution File: REL026-4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : REL026-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 : n019.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 19:21:10 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 16.34s 2.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 16.34s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : REL026-4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % 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 : n019.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 : Fri Jul 8 13:51:53 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.13/0.37 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP.
% 0.13/0.37 #
% 0.13/0.37 # Number of axioms: 17 Number of unprocessed: 17
% 0.13/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.13/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.13/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 0.13/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.13/0.37 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.13/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.13/0.37 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.13/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures.
% 0.13/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates:
% 0.13/0.37 # Found 16 unit axioms.
% 0.13/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.13/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.13/0.37 # 1 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.13/0.37 # 16 unit axiom clauses
% 0.13/0.37
% 0.13/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.13/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2
% 0.13/0.37 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.13/0.37 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.13/0.37 # Returning from population with 24 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.13/0.37 # We now have 24 tableaux to operate on
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 16.34/2.42 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 16.34/2.42 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 16.34/2.42 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 16.34/2.42 # Begin clausification derivation
% 16.34/2.42
% 16.34/2.42 # End clausification derivation
% 16.34/2.42 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_35, negated_conjecture, (join(sk1,one)=one)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2)))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(complement(X1))))=zero)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))=composition(join(X1,X2),X3))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2))=complement(X2))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_36, negated_conjecture, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,top)),complement(sk2))),composition(sk1,sk2))!=composition(sk1,sk2)|join(composition(sk1,sk2),complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,top)),complement(sk2))))!=complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,top)),complement(sk2))))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3))))))=composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3))))))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),complement(join(complement(composition(X1,complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3)))))),complement(X3))))=complement(join(complement(composition(X1,complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3)))))),complement(X3))))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),complement(join(complement(composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),X2)),complement(X3))))=complement(join(complement(composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),X2)),complement(X3))))).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_46, plain, (X4=X4)).
% 16.34/2.42 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 16.34/2.42 # Begin printing tableau
% 16.34/2.42 # Found 6 steps
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_35, negated_conjecture, (join(sk1,one)=one), inference(start_rule)).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_55, plain, (join(sk1,one)=one), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_49])).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_100, plain, (converse(converse(one))!=one), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_26])).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_98, plain, (join(sk1,one)=converse(converse(one))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_50])).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_109, plain, (converse(converse(X4))!=X4), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_26])).
% 16.34/2.42 cnf(i_0_107, plain, (join(join(sk1,one),converse(converse(X4)))=join(converse(converse(one)),X4)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_107, ...])).
% 16.34/2.42 # End printing tableau
% 16.34/2.42 # SZS output end
% 16.34/2.42 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 16.34/2.43 # Child (20923) has found a proof.
% 16.34/2.43
% 16.34/2.43 # Proof search is over...
% 16.34/2.43 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------