%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : MGT034+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 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 : n031.cluster.edu % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz % Memory : 8046.5625MB % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % CPULimit : 300s % WCLimit : 300s % DateTime : Tue Sep 8 06:09:47 AM UTC 2026 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 0.27s 0.52s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.04 % Problem : MGT034+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.00/0.06 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.17/0.42 % Computer : n031.cluster.edu % 0.17/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.17/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.17/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.17/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.17/0.43 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.17/0.43 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.17/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 12:31:11 UTC 2026 % 0.17/0.43 % CPUTime : % 0.17/0.49 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.17/0.49 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___107_C36_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y % 0.17/0.49 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred. % 0.17/0.49 # % 0.17/0.49 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.17/0.49 # Number of axioms: 28 Number of unprocessed: 28 % 0.17/0.49 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.17/0.49 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.17/0.49 # Hello from C++ % 0.17/0.49 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.17/0.49 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.17/0.49 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.17/0.49 # 28 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.17/0.49 # Creating start rules for all 5 conjectures. % 0.17/0.49 # There are 5 start rule candidates: % 0.17/0.49 # Found 6 unit axioms. % 0.17/0.49 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.17/0.49 # 5 start rule tableaux created. % 0.17/0.49 # 22 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.17/0.49 # 6 unit axiom clauses % 0.17/0.49 % 0.17/0.49 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.17/0.49 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 5 % 0.17/0.49 # Returning from population with 12 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.17/0.49 # We now have 12 tableaux to operate on % 0.27/0.52 # 4064764 Satisfiable branch % 0.27/0.52 # Satisfiable branch found. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.27/0.52 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.27/0.52 # SZS status CounterSatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.27/0.52 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.27/0.52 # Begin clausification derivation % 0.27/0.52 % 0.27/0.52 # End clausification derivation % 0.27/0.52 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_28, negated_conjecture, (environment(esk1_0))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_27, negated_conjecture, (in_environment(esk1_0,critical_point(esk1_0)))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (greater(critical_point(esk1_0),esk2_0))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (greater_or_equal(esk2_0,appear(efficient_producers,esk1_0)))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (~selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk2_0))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,X2)|~greater(X1,X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (in_environment(X1,start_time(X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (X1=X2|greater(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X1,X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (greater_or_equal(appear(first_movers,X1),start_time(X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,critical_point(X1))|~in_environment(X1,critical_point(X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X2))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~in_environment(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (subpopulations(efficient_producers,first_movers,X1,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (in_environment(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X2,X3)|~greater_or_equal(X4,X2)|~in_environment(X1,X4)|~in_environment(X1,X3)|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1)))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_22, hypothesis, (X1!=critical_point(X2)|~greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~environment(X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|~greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|~greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (greater(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1))|~greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_23, hypothesis, (decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,X1),founding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (~decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,X1),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_21, hypothesis, (greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1),growth_rate(first_movers,X1))|X2!=critical_point(X3)|~greater(X1,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X3,X1)|~environment(X3))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (selection_favors(X1,X2,X3)|~greater(growth_rate(X1,X3),growth_rate(X2,X3))|~subpopulations(X2,X1,X4,X3)|~environment(X4))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_20, hypothesis, (subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X2,X3)|~greater_or_equal(X4,X2)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X4)|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1,X3)|~environment(X1))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,X1),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,X1),founding_rate(efficient_producers,X1))))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|~greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X2),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X2)),zero)|~greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X3))|~in_environment(X3,X2)|~decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~greater(X2,X1)|~environment(X3))). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)),zero)|greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,X1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,X1)))|~subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,X2,X1)|~environment(X2))). % 0.27/0.52 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 0.27/0.52 # Begin printing tableau % 0.27/0.52 # Found 7 steps % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (greater_or_equal(esk2_0,appear(efficient_producers,esk1_0))), inference(start_rule)). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (greater_or_equal(esk2_0,appear(efficient_producers,esk1_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_173, plain, (~in_environment(esk1_0,critical_point(esk1_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_27])). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_175, plain, (~greater(critical_point(esk1_0),esk2_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_25])). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_176, plain, (~environment(esk1_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_28])). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_170, plain, (greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,esk2_0),growth_rate(efficient_producers,esk2_0)),zero)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_17])). % 0.27/0.52 cnf(i_0_171, plain, (~greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point(esk1_0)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point(esk1_0))),zero)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_171, ...])). % 0.27/0.52 # End printing tableau % 0.27/0.52 # SZS output end % 0.27/0.52 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 0.27/0.52 # Child (4064764) has found a proof. % 0.27/0.52 % 0.27/0.52 # Proof search is over... % 0.27/0.52 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------