TSTP Solution File: REL031+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : REL031+1 : 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 : n024.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 19:21:21 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 78.43s 10.22s
% Output : CNFRefutation 78.43s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : REL031+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % 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 : n024.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 : Fri Jul 8 11:45:44 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.12/0.36 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP.
% 0.12/0.36 #
% 0.12/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.36 # Number of axioms: 16 Number of unprocessed: 16
% 0.12/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.12/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.12/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.12/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.12/0.36 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.12/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.12/0.36 # 16 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.12/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
% 0.12/0.36 # There are 3 start rule candidates:
% 0.12/0.36 # Found 16 unit axioms.
% 0.12/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.12/0.36 # 3 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.12/0.36 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.12/0.36 # 16 unit axiom clauses
% 0.12/0.36
% 0.12/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.12/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
% 0.12/0.36 # Creating equality axioms
% 0.12/0.36 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 0.12/0.36 # Returning from population with 25 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.12/0.36 # We now have 25 tableaux to operate on
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 5 total branch saturation attempts.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 78.43/10.22 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 78.43/10.22 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 78.43/10.22 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 78.43/10.22 # Begin clausification derivation
% 78.43/10.22
% 78.43/10.22 # End clausification derivation
% 78.43/10.22 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (meet(X1,complement(X1))=zero)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_16, negated_conjecture, (join(one,composition(converse(esk1_0),esk1_0))=one)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_15, negated_conjecture, (join(one,composition(converse(esk2_0),esk2_0))=one)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))=meet(X1,X2))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (join(meet(X1,X2),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_14, negated_conjecture, (join(one,composition(converse(composition(esk1_0,esk2_0)),composition(esk1_0,esk2_0)))!=one)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X31=X31)).
% 78.43/10.22 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 78.43/10.22 # Begin printing tableau
% 78.43/10.22 # Found 8 steps
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X7))=X7), inference(start_rule)).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (converse(converse(X7))=X7), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_26])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (converse(converse(X8))!=X8), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_58, plain, (meet(converse(converse(X8)),converse(converse(X7)))=meet(X8,X7)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_23])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_72, plain, (converse(converse(meet(X8,X7)))!=meet(X8,X7)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_70, plain, (meet(converse(converse(X8)),converse(converse(X7)))=converse(converse(meet(X8,X7)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_27])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_1036429, plain, (converse(converse(X6))!=X6), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 78.43/10.22 cnf(i_0_1036427, plain, (composition(meet(converse(converse(X8)),converse(converse(X7))),converse(converse(X6)))=composition(converse(converse(meet(X8,X7))),X6)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_1036427, ...])).
% 78.43/10.22 # End printing tableau
% 78.43/10.22 # SZS output end
% 78.43/10.22 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 78.43/10.23 # Child (17759) has found a proof.
% 78.43/10.23
% 78.43/10.23 # Proof search is over...
% 78.43/10.23 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------