%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : MGT040+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 : n007.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 06:09:49 AM UTC 2026 % Result : CounterSatisfiable 0.09s 0.41s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT040+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.00/0.03 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu % 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 12:55:26 UTC 2026 % 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime : % 0.09/0.40 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.09/0.40 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___107_C36_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y % 0.09/0.40 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred. % 0.09/0.40 # % 0.09/0.40 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.09/0.40 # Number of axioms: 22 Number of unprocessed: 21 % 0.09/0.40 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.09/0.40 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.09/0.40 # Hello from C++ % 0.09/0.40 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.09/0.40 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.09/0.40 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.09/0.40 # 21 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.09/0.40 # Creating start rules for all 4 conjectures. % 0.09/0.40 # There are 4 start rule candidates: % 0.09/0.40 # Found 6 unit axioms. % 0.09/0.40 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.09/0.40 # 4 start rule tableaux created. % 0.09/0.40 # 15 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.09/0.40 # 6 unit axiom clauses % 0.09/0.40 % 0.09/0.40 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.09/0.40 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 4 % 0.09/0.40 # Returning from population with 9 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.09/0.40 # We now have 9 tableaux to operate on % 0.09/0.41 # Creating equality axioms % 0.09/0.41 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 0.09/0.41 # 1407581 Satisfiable branch % 0.09/0.41 # Satisfiable branch found. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 total successful branch saturations. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.09/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.09/0.41 # SZS status CounterSatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.09/0.41 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.09/0.41 # Begin clausification derivation % 0.09/0.41 % 0.09/0.41 # End clausification derivation % 0.09/0.41 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_22, negated_conjecture, (observational_period(esk2_0))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (rapid_change(esk2_0))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (propagation_strategy(first_movers))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (propagation_strategy(efficient_producers))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_20, negated_conjecture, (~extreme(esk2_0))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_19, negated_conjecture, (~selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,esk2_0))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (in_environment(X1,end_time(X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|greater(X1,X2)|~greater_or_equal(X1,X2))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (extreme(X1)|~empty(X2)|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X2)|~observational_period(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (selection_favors(efficient_producers,first_movers,X1)|environment(esk1_1(X1))|~observational_period(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (selection_favors(efficient_producers,first_movers,X1)|in_environment(X1,esk1_1(X1))|~observational_period(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X2))|greater(appear(efficient_producers,X2),X1)|~in_environment(X2,X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (greater(critical_point(X1),end_time(X1))|in_environment(X1,critical_point(X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (selection_favors(efficient_producers,first_movers,X1)|~selection_favors(efficient_producers,first_movers,end_time(esk1_1(X1)))|~observational_period(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (greater_or_equal(end_time(X1),appear(an_organisation,X1))|empty(X1)|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_18, hypothesis, (appear(first_movers,X1)=appear(an_organisation,X1)|~in_environment(X1,appear(an_organisation,X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (~rapid_change(X1)|~in_environment(X2,critical_point(X2))|~in_environment(X1,X2)|~environment(X2)|~observational_period(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (in_environment(X1,appear(an_organisation,X1))|~greater_or_equal(end_time(X1),appear(an_organisation,X1))|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_16, hypothesis, (selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1)|~greater_or_equal(X1,appear(first_movers,X2))|~greater(appear(efficient_producers,X2),X1)|~in_environment(X2,X1)|~environment(X2))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_17, hypothesis, (selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,X1)|~greater_or_equal(X1,appear(efficient_producers,X2))|~greater(critical_point(X2),X1)|~in_environment(X2,critical_point(X2))|~environment(X2))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,end_time(X1))|in_environment(X1,critical_point(X1))|~greater_or_equal(X2,appear(efficient_producers,X1))|~greater(critical_point(X1),X2)|~environment(X1))). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_297, plain, (X28=X28)). % 0.09/0.41 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 0.09/0.41 # Begin printing tableau % 0.09/0.41 # Found 6 steps % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_297, plain, (esk2_0=esk2_0), inference(start_rule)). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_444, plain, (extreme(esk2_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_0])). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_374, plain, (esk2_0=esk2_0), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_301])). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_438, plain, (~observational_period(esk2_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_22])). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_436, plain, (observational_period(esk2_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])). % 0.09/0.41 cnf(i_0_446, plain, (~in_environment(esk2_0,end_time(esk2_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_8])). % 0.09/0.41 # End printing tableau % 0.09/0.41 # SZS output end % 0.09/0.41 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 0.09/0.41 # Child (1407581) has found a proof. % 0.09/0.41 % 0.09/0.41 # Proof search is over... % 0.09/0.41 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------