TSTP Solution File: SYN551+3 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SYN551+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.1.0.
% 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 : n027.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 : Thu Jul 21 06:12:24 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.37s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.37s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SYN551+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v3.1.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % 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 : n027.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 Jul 12 07:40:05 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.13/0.36 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.13/0.36 #
% 0.13/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.36 # Number of axioms: 8 Number of unprocessed: 8
% 0.13/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.13/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.13/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.13/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.13/0.36 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.13/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.13/0.36 # 8 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.13/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 8 conjectures.
% 0.13/0.36 # There are 8 start rule candidates:
% 0.13/0.36 # Found 0 unit axioms.
% 0.13/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.13/0.36 # 8 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.13/0.36 # 8 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.13/0.36 # 0 unit axiom clauses
% 0.13/0.36
% 0.13/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 50 total branch saturation attempts.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 10 free duplicated saturations.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 50 total successful branch saturations.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 3 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 1.37/0.53 # There were 37 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 1.37/0.54 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.37/0.54 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.37/0.54 # Begin clausification derivation
% 1.37/0.54
% 1.37/0.54 # End clausification derivation
% 1.37/0.54 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_4, negated_conjecture, (g(f(esk4_0))=esk4_0|f(g(esk3_0))=esk3_0)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_2, negated_conjecture, (g(f(esk4_0))=esk4_0|X1=esk3_0|f(g(X1))!=X1)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_3, negated_conjecture, (f(g(esk3_0))=esk3_0|X1=esk4_0|g(f(X1))!=X1)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_1, negated_conjecture, (X1=esk4_0|X2=esk3_0|f(g(X2))!=X2|g(f(X1))!=X1)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_5, negated_conjecture, (f(g(X1))!=X1|g(f(X2))!=X2|esk1_1(X1)!=X1|esk2_1(X2)!=X2)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_7, negated_conjecture, (f(g(esk1_1(X1)))=esk1_1(X1)|f(g(X1))!=X1|g(f(X2))!=X2|esk2_1(X2)!=X2)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_6, negated_conjecture, (g(f(esk2_1(X1)))=esk2_1(X1)|f(g(X2))!=X2|g(f(X1))!=X1|esk1_1(X2)!=X2)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_8, negated_conjecture, (g(f(esk2_1(X1)))=esk2_1(X1)|f(g(esk1_1(X2)))=esk1_1(X2)|f(g(X2))!=X2|g(f(X1))!=X1)).
% 1.37/0.54 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 1.37/0.54 # Begin printing tableau
% 1.37/0.54 # Found 8 steps
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_4, negated_conjecture, (g(f(esk4_0))=esk4_0|f(g(esk3_0))=esk3_0), inference(start_rule)).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (f(g(esk3_0))=esk3_0), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_12163, plain, (g(f(esk4_0))!=esk4_0), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_2])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_12168, plain, (f(g(esk3_0))!=esk3_0), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_36])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (g(f(esk4_0))=esk4_0), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_35, ...])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_12164, plain, (esk1_1(esk3_0)!=esk3_0), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_12164, ...])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_12165, plain, (esk2_1(esk4_0)!=esk4_0), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_12165, ...])).
% 1.37/0.54 cnf(i_0_12167, plain, (esk3_0=esk3_0), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_12167, ...])).
% 1.37/0.54 # End printing tableau
% 1.37/0.54 # SZS output end
% 1.37/0.54 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 1.37/0.54 # Child (17841) has found a proof.
% 1.37/0.54
% 1.37/0.54 # Proof search is over...
% 1.37/0.54 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------