%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : ALG072+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0. % 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 : n022.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 14 16:51:26 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 10.76s 1.75s % Output : CNFRefutation 10.76s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.10/0.11 % Problem : ALG072+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0. % 0.10/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu % 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 00:06:19 EDT 2022 % 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.11/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.11/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18__C_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN % 0.11/0.36 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn. % 0.11/0.36 # % 0.11/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.11/0.36 # Number of axioms: 25 Number of unprocessed: 23 % 0.11/0.36 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.11/0.36 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.11/0.36 # Hello from C++ % 0.11/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.11/0.36 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.11/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.11/0.36 # 23 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.11/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 6 conjectures. % 0.11/0.36 # There are 6 start rule candidates: % 0.11/0.36 # Found 5 unit axioms. % 0.11/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.11/0.36 # 6 start rule tableaux created. % 0.11/0.36 # 18 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.11/0.36 # 5 unit axiom clauses % 0.11/0.36 % 0.11/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.11/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 6 % 0.11/0.36 # Returning from population with 13 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.11/0.36 # We now have 13 tableaux to operate on % 9.41/1.58 # Creating equality axioms % 9.41/1.58 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 9.41/1.58 # Creating equality axioms % 9.41/1.58 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 10.76/1.75 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.76/1.75 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.76/1.75 # Begin clausification derivation % 10.76/1.75 % 10.76/1.75 # End clausification derivation % 10.76/1.75 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (esk1_0=unit1)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (sorti1(unit1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (sorti1(esk3_0))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (sorti2(unit2))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (esk2_0=unit2)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (sorti1(j(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (sorti2(h(X1))|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (sorti2(esk4_1(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (sorti2(esk5_1(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (h(j(X1))=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_20, negated_conjecture, (j(h(X1))=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (op1(X1,unit1)=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (op2(X1,unit2)=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (op1(unit1,X1)=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (op2(unit2,X1)=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (sorti1(op1(X1,X2))|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (op1(X1,X2)!=esk3_0|esk3_0!=unit1|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (X1=unit2|op2(esk4_1(X1),X1)!=esk5_1(X1)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (sorti2(op2(X1,X2))|~sorti2(X2)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (op2(esk4_1(X1),esk5_1(X1))=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_23, negated_conjecture, (op2(h(X1),h(X2))=h(op1(X1,X2))|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_22, negated_conjecture, (op1(j(X1),j(X2))=j(op2(X1,X2))|~sorti2(X2)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (op1(X1,esk3_0)=X2|op1(X1,X2)!=esk3_0|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_310, plain, (X31=X31)). % 10.76/1.75 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 10.76/1.75 # Begin printing tableau % 10.76/1.75 # Found 5 steps % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_310, plain, (unit1=unit1), inference(start_rule)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_370, plain, (unit1=unit1), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_314])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_425, plain, (~sorti1(unit1)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_1])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_423, plain, (sorti1(unit1)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_4])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_430, plain, (op1(unit1,unit1)=unit1), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_430, ...])). % 10.76/1.75 # End printing tableau % 10.76/1.75 # SZS output end % 10.76/1.75 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 10.76/1.75 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 10.76/1.75 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.76/1.75 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 10.76/1.75 # Begin clausification derivation % 10.76/1.75 % 10.76/1.75 # End clausification derivation % 10.76/1.75 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (esk1_0=unit1)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (sorti1(unit1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (sorti1(esk3_0))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (sorti2(unit2))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (esk2_0=unit2)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (sorti1(j(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (sorti2(h(X1))|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (sorti2(esk4_1(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (sorti2(esk5_1(X1))|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (h(j(X1))=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_20, negated_conjecture, (j(h(X1))=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (op1(X1,unit1)=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (op2(X1,unit2)=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (op1(unit1,X1)=X1|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (op2(unit2,X1)=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (sorti1(op1(X1,X2))|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (op1(X1,X2)!=esk3_0|esk3_0!=unit1|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (X1=unit2|op2(esk4_1(X1),X1)!=esk5_1(X1)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (sorti2(op2(X1,X2))|~sorti2(X2)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (op2(esk4_1(X1),esk5_1(X1))=X1|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_23, negated_conjecture, (op2(h(X1),h(X2))=h(op1(X1,X2))|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_22, negated_conjecture, (op1(j(X1),j(X2))=j(op2(X1,X2))|~sorti2(X2)|~sorti2(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (op1(X1,esk3_0)=X2|op1(X1,X2)!=esk3_0|~sorti1(X2)|~sorti1(X1))). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_355, plain, (X31=X31)). % 10.76/1.75 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 10.76/1.75 # Begin printing tableau % 10.76/1.75 # Found 5 steps % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_355, plain, (unit1=unit1), inference(start_rule)). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_415, plain, (unit1=unit1), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_359])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_470, plain, (~sorti1(unit1)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_1])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_468, plain, (sorti1(unit1)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_4])). % 10.76/1.75 cnf(i_0_475, plain, (op1(unit1,unit1)=unit1), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_475, ...])). % 10.76/1.75 # End printing tableau % 10.76/1.75 # SZS output end % 10.76/1.75 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 10.76/1.75 # Child (15698) has found a proof. % 10.76/1.75 % 10.76/1.75 # Proof search is over... % 10.76/1.75 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------