%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : REL012+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 : n026.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 19:20:49 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 272.71s 34.67s % Output : CNFRefutation 272.71s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.10/0.11 % Problem : REL012+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.10/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu % 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Fri Jul 8 09:51:55 EDT 2022 % 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.11/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.11/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S % 0.11/0.36 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP. % 0.11/0.36 # % 0.11/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.11/0.36 # Number of axioms: 17 Number of unprocessed: 17 % 0.11/0.36 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.11/0.36 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.11/0.36 # Hello from C++ % 0.11/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.11/0.36 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.11/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.11/0.36 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.11/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures. % 0.11/0.36 # There are 1 start rule candidates: % 0.11/0.36 # Found 17 unit axioms. % 0.11/0.36 # 1 start rule tableaux created. % 0.11/0.36 # 0 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.11/0.36 # 17 unit axiom clauses % 0.11/0.36 % 0.11/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.11/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1 % 0.11/0.36 # Creating equality axioms % 0.11/0.36 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 0.11/0.36 # Returning from population with 26 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.11/0.36 # We now have 26 tableaux to operate on % 272.71/34.67 # There were 4 total branch saturation attempts. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 272.71/34.67 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 272.71/34.67 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 272.71/34.67 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 272.71/34.67 # Begin clausification derivation % 272.71/34.67 % 272.71/34.67 # End clausification derivation % 272.71/34.67 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (meet(X1,X2)=complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (complement(top)=zero)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (join(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(join(X1,X2)))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (composition(converse(X1),converse(X2))=converse(composition(X2,X1)))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X3,X2))=composition(join(X1,X3),X2))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (join(complement(X1),composition(converse(X2),complement(composition(X2,X1))))=complement(X1))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(X1),X2)),complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))))=X1)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),complement(join(complement(X3),complement(composition(X1,complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3)))))))))=complement(join(complement(X3),complement(composition(X1,complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3)))))))))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),complement(join(complement(X3),complement(composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),X2)))))=complement(join(complement(X3),complement(composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),X2)))))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(X1,X2)),complement(X3))),composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3))))))=composition(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(composition(X3,converse(X2))))),complement(join(complement(X2),complement(composition(converse(X1),X3))))))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_17, negated_conjecture, (join(complement(esk1_0),composition(complement(composition(esk1_0,esk2_0)),converse(esk2_0)))!=complement(esk1_0))). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (X40=X40)). % 272.71/34.67 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 272.71/34.67 # Begin printing tableau % 272.71/34.67 # Found 8 steps % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (converse(converse(X3))=X3), inference(start_rule)). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (converse(converse(X3))=X3), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_26])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_63, plain, (converse(converse(X5))!=X5), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_61, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=composition(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_22])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_72, plain, (converse(converse(composition(X3,X5)))!=composition(X3,X5)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_70, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=converse(converse(composition(X3,X5)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_25])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_1557591, plain, (converse(converse(X6))!=X6), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_8])). % 272.71/34.67 cnf(i_0_1557589, plain, (meet(composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5))),converse(converse(X6)))=meet(converse(converse(composition(X3,X5))),X6)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_1557589, ...])). % 272.71/34.67 # End printing tableau % 272.71/34.67 # SZS output end % 272.71/34.67 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 273.53/34.70 # Child (11184) has found a proof. % 273.53/34.70 % 273.53/34.70 # Proof search is over... % 273.53/34.70 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------