%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : REL010+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0. % 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 : n023.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 : Mon Jul 18 19:20:47 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 2.17s 0.64s % Output : CNFRefutation 2.17s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.12 % Problem : REL010+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.03/0.13 % 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 : n023.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 : Fri Jul 8 14:43:41 EDT 2022 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.19/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S % 0.19/0.37 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP. % 0.19/0.37 # % 0.19/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.19/0.37 # Number of axioms: 18 Number of unprocessed: 18 % 0.19/0.37 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.19/0.37 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.19/0.37 # Hello from C++ % 0.19/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.19/0.37 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.19/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.19/0.37 # 18 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.19/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures. % 0.19/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates: % 0.19/0.37 # Found 18 unit axioms. % 0.19/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.19/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created. % 0.19/0.37 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.19/0.37 # 18 unit axiom clauses % 0.19/0.37 % 0.19/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.19/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2 % 0.19/0.37 # Creating equality axioms % 0.19/0.37 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 0.19/0.37 # Returning from population with 27 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.19/0.37 # We now have 27 tableaux to operate on % 2.17/0.64 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 2.17/0.64 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 2.17/0.64 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.17/0.64 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.17/0.64 # Begin clausification derivation % 2.17/0.64 % 2.17/0.64 # End clausification derivation % 2.17/0.64 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (meet(X1,complement(X1))=zero)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_18, negated_conjecture, (meet(composition(esk1_0,esk2_0),esk3_0)=zero)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2)))=meet(X1,X2))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (join(meet(X1,X2),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))=meet(composition(X1,meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))),X3))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))=meet(composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),X2),X3))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (join(meet(composition(X1,X2),X3),composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))=composition(meet(X1,composition(X3,converse(X2))),meet(X2,composition(converse(X1),X3))))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_17, negated_conjecture, (meet(esk2_0,composition(converse(esk1_0),esk3_0))!=zero)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (X41=X41)). % 2.17/0.64 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 2.17/0.64 # Begin printing tableau % 2.17/0.64 # Found 6 steps % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(start_rule)). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_25])). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_57, plain, (converse(converse(X3))!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_56, plain, (join(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=join(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_24])). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_75, plain, (join(X3,X5)!=converse(converse(join(X3,X5)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])). % 2.17/0.64 cnf(i_0_73, plain, (join(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=converse(converse(join(X3,X5)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_73, ...])). % 2.17/0.64 # End printing tableau % 2.17/0.64 # SZS output end % 2.17/0.64 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 2.17/0.64 # Child (4514) has found a proof. % 2.17/0.64 % 2.17/0.64 # Proof search is over... % 2.17/0.64 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------