%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : COL090-3 : 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 : 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 : Fri Jul 15 00:24:50 EDT 2022 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.40s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.12/0.12 % Problem : COL090-3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0. % 0.12/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Tue May 31 06:57:51 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.12/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.12/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN % 0.12/0.37 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn. % 0.12/0.37 # % 0.12/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.12/0.37 # Number of axioms: 23 Number of unprocessed: 23 % 0.12/0.37 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.12/0.37 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.12/0.37 # Hello from C++ % 0.12/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.12/0.39 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.12/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.12/0.39 # 23 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.12/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures. % 0.12/0.39 # There are 1 start rule candidates: % 0.12/0.39 # Found 6 unit axioms. % 0.12/0.39 # 1 start rule tableaux created. % 0.12/0.39 # 17 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.12/0.39 # 6 unit axiom clauses % 0.12/0.39 % 0.12/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.12/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1 % 0.12/0.40 # There were 4 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 4 total successful branch saturations. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.12/0.40 # There were 4 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.12/0.40 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.12/0.40 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.12/0.40 # Begin clausification derivation % 0.12/0.40 % 0.12/0.40 # End clausification derivation % 0.12/0.40 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_48, negated_conjecture, (member(pair(comb_app(comb_app(combS,combK),combK),r),contract))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (combS!=combK)). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_46, plain, (~member(pair(combK,X1),contract))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_47, plain, (~member(pair(combS,X1),contract))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combK)). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combS)). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c1(X2,X3,X1))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c1(X2,X1,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X2,X1,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_41, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c3(X2,X1,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_44, plain, (member(X1,comb)|~ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X3,X1)!=comb_app(X4,X2))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X1,X3)!=comb_app(X2,X4))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (X1=comb_app(combK,X2)|~ap_contractE_c1(X1,X3,X2))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (member(ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3),comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (member(ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3),comb)|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_45, plain, (comb_app(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3))=X3|~ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_42, plain, (comb_app(ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3),X2)=X3|~ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X2,X1,X3)),contract)|~ap_contractE_c4(X2,X1,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3)),contract)|~ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_39, plain, (comb_app(comb_app(combS,ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3)),ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3))=X1|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)|ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3)|~member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),X3),contract))). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (comb_app(comb_app(ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3),X2),comb_app(ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3),X2))=X3|~ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3))). % 0.12/0.40 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 0.12/0.40 # Begin printing tableau % 0.12/0.40 # Found 7 steps % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_48, negated_conjecture, (member(pair(comb_app(comb_app(combS,combK),combK),r),contract)), inference(start_rule)). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_49, plain, (member(pair(comb_app(comb_app(combS,combK),combK),r),contract)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_31])). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_80, plain, (ap_contractE_c4(comb_app(combS,combK),combK,r)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_44])). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_81, plain, (ap_contractE_c3(comb_app(combS,combK),combK,r)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_81, ...])). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_82, plain, (ap_contractE_c2(comb_app(combS,combK),combK,r)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_82, ...])). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_83, plain, (ap_contractE_c1(comb_app(combS,combK),combK,r)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_83, ...])). % 0.12/0.40 cnf(i_0_95, plain, (member(comb_app(combS,combK),comb)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_95, ...])). % 0.12/0.40 # End printing tableau % 0.12/0.40 # SZS output end % 0.12/0.40 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 0.12/0.40 # Returning from population with 1 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.12/0.40 # We now have 1 tableaux to operate on % 0.12/0.40 # Found closed tableau during pool population. % 0.12/0.40 # Proof search is over... % 0.12/0.40 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------