TSTP Solution File: SWV409+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SWV409+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : Wed Jul 20 18:20:53 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 0.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SWV409+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Tue Jun 14 17:19:26 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S038I
% 0.19/0.36 # and selection function SelectUnlessUniqMaxPos.
% 0.19/0.36 #
% 0.19/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.36 # Number of axioms: 33 Number of unprocessed: 33
% 0.19/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.19/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.19/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.19/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.19/0.37 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.19/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.19/0.37 # 33 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.19/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 4 conjectures.
% 0.19/0.37 # There are 4 start rule candidates:
% 0.19/0.37 # Found 14 unit axioms.
% 0.19/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.19/0.37 # 4 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.19/0.37 # 19 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.19/0.37 # 14 unit axiom clauses
% 0.19/0.37
% 0.19/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.19/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 4
% 0.19/0.37 # Returning from population with 11 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.19/0.37 # We now have 11 tableaux to operate on
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.19/0.40 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.40
% 0.19/0.40 # End clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_32, negated_conjecture, (strictly_less_than(esk4_0,esk5_0))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_33, negated_conjecture, (contains_slb(esk3_0,esk4_0))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (update_slb(create_slb,X1)=create_slb)).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (less_than(bottom,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (less_than(X1,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (isnonempty_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3))))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (remove_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X2)=X1)).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (contains_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (lookup_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X2)=X3)).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (pair_in_list(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X2,X3))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (~pair_in_list(update_slb(esk3_0,esk5_0),esk4_0,esk5_0))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (~isnonempty_slb(create_slb))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (~contains_slb(create_slb,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (~pair_in_list(create_slb,X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (~strictly_less_than(X1,X2)|~less_than(X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (less_than(X1,X2)|~strictly_less_than(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_30, negated_conjecture, (~pair_in_list(update_slb(esk3_0,esk5_0),esk4_0,X1)|~less_than(esk5_0,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (less_than(X1,X2)|less_than(X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (strictly_less_than(X1,X2)|less_than(X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_26, lemma, (pair_in_list(X1,X2,esk1_2(X1,X2))|~contains_slb(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (less_than(X1,X2)|~less_than(X3,X2)|~less_than(X1,X3))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|contains_slb(X3,X2)|~contains_slb(insert_slb(X3,pair(X1,X4)),X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (X1=X2|pair_in_list(X3,X4,X2)|~pair_in_list(insert_slb(X3,pair(X5,X1)),X4,X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (contains_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4)|~contains_slb(X1,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_27, lemma, (pair_in_list(update_slb(X1,X2),X3,X2)|~pair_in_list(X1,X3,X4)|~strictly_less_than(X4,X2)|~strictly_less_than(X3,X2))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_28, lemma, (less_than(X1,esk2_4(X2,X3,X4,X1))|~pair_in_list(X2,X3,X4)|~strictly_less_than(X3,X1)|~less_than(X1,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (update_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4)=insert_slb(update_slb(X1,X4),pair(X2,X3))|~less_than(X4,X3))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (lookup_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4)=lookup_slb(X1,X4)|X2=X4|~contains_slb(X1,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (pair_in_list(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4,X5)|~pair_in_list(X1,X4,X5))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (X1=X2|pair_in_list(X3,X2,X4)|~pair_in_list(insert_slb(X3,pair(X1,X5)),X2,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_29, lemma, (pair_in_list(update_slb(X1,X2),X3,esk2_4(X1,X3,X4,X2))|~pair_in_list(X1,X3,X4)|~strictly_less_than(X3,X2)|~less_than(X2,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (update_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4)=insert_slb(update_slb(X1,X4),pair(X2,X4))|~strictly_less_than(X3,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (remove_slb(insert_slb(X1,pair(X2,X3)),X4)=insert_slb(remove_slb(X1,X4),pair(X2,X3))|X2=X4|~contains_slb(X1,X4))).
% 0.19/0.40 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.19/0.40 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.19/0.40 # Found 4 steps
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_32, negated_conjecture, (strictly_less_than(esk4_0,esk5_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_41, plain, (strictly_less_than(esk4_0,esk5_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_193, plain, (~less_than(esk5_0,esk4_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_6])).
% 0.19/0.40 cnf(i_0_195, plain, (~strictly_less_than(esk5_0,esk4_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_195, ...])).
% 0.19/0.40 # End printing tableau
% 0.19/0.40 # SZS output end
% 0.19/0.40 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.19/0.40 # Child (32509) has found a proof.
% 0.19/0.40
% 0.19/0.40 # Proof search is over...
% 0.19/0.40 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------