%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : COL099-1 : 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 : n021.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 00:24:53 EDT 2022 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.37s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.06/0.12 % Problem : COL099-1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.7.0. % 0.06/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Tue May 31 07:47:14 EDT 2022 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.13/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.13/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN % 0.13/0.37 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn. % 0.13/0.37 # % 0.13/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.13/0.37 # Number of axioms: 14 Number of unprocessed: 14 % 0.13/0.37 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.13/0.37 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.13/0.37 # Hello from C++ % 0.13/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.13/0.37 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.13/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.13/0.37 # 14 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.13/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures. % 0.13/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates: % 0.13/0.37 # Found 7 unit axioms. % 0.13/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.13/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created. % 0.13/0.37 # 7 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.13/0.37 # 7 unit axiom clauses % 0.13/0.37 % 0.13/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.13/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2 % 0.13/0.37 # Returning from population with 13 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.13/0.37 # We now have 13 tableaux to operate on % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.13/0.37 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.13/0.37 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.13/0.37 # Begin clausification derivation % 0.13/0.37 % 0.13/0.37 # End clausification derivation % 0.13/0.37 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_28, hypothesis, (member(pair(y,ya),r))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_29, negated_conjecture, (member(pair(y,yp),trancl(r)))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_27, hypothesis, (diamond(r))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (trans(trancl(X1)))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (combK!=combS)). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combK)). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (comb_app(X1,X2)!=combS)). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_30, negated_conjecture, (~member(pair(ya,X1),trancl(r))|~member(pair(yp,X1),trancl(r)))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X3,X1)!=comb_app(X4,X2))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (X1=X2|comb_app(X1,X3)!=comb_app(X2,X4))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (member(pair(X1,X2),trancl(X3))|~member(pair(X1,X2),X3))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (member(pair(X1,X2),X3)|~trans(X3)|~member(pair(X4,X2),X3)|~member(pair(X1,X4),X3))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (member(pair(X1,diamond_strip_lemmaD_sk1(X2,X1,X3,X4)),X4)|~diamond(X4)|~member(pair(X2,X1),trancl(X4))|~member(pair(X2,X3),X4))). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (member(pair(X1,diamond_strip_lemmaD_sk1(X2,X3,X1,X4)),trancl(X4))|~diamond(X4)|~member(pair(X2,X3),trancl(X4))|~member(pair(X2,X1),X4))). % 0.13/0.37 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 0.13/0.37 # Begin printing tableau % 0.13/0.37 # Found 6 steps % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_29, negated_conjecture, (member(pair(y,yp),trancl(r))), inference(start_rule)). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (member(pair(y,yp),trancl(r))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_25])). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_89, plain, (~diamond(r)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_27])). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_91, plain, (~member(pair(y,ya),r)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_28])). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_88, plain, (member(pair(ya,diamond_strip_lemmaD_sk1(y,yp,ya,r)),trancl(r))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_22])). % 0.13/0.37 cnf(i_0_98, plain, (member(pair(ya,diamond_strip_lemmaD_sk1(y,yp,ya,r)),trancl(trancl(r)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_98, ...])). % 0.13/0.37 # End printing tableau % 0.13/0.37 # SZS output end % 0.13/0.37 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.13/0.37 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.13/0.37 # Child (8590) has found a proof. % 0.13/0.37 % 0.13/0.37 # Proof search is over... % 0.13/0.37 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------