%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : REL030-2 : 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 : n003.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 19:21:19 EDT 2022 % Result : Unsatisfiable 80.52s 10.58s % Output : CNFRefutation 80.52s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.12/0.14 % Problem : REL030-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0. % 0.12/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Fri Jul 8 12:48:13 EDT 2022 % 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime : % 0.14/0.39 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.14/0.39 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic H_____047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S % 0.14/0.39 # and selection function SelectNewComplexAHP. % 0.14/0.39 # % 0.14/0.39 # Number of axioms: 14 Number of unprocessed: 14 % 0.14/0.39 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.14/0.39 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.14/0.39 # Hello from C++ % 0.14/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.14/0.39 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.14/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.14/0.39 # 14 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.14/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures. % 0.14/0.39 # There are 2 start rule candidates: % 0.14/0.39 # Found 13 unit axioms. % 0.14/0.39 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on. % 0.14/0.39 # 2 start rule tableaux created. % 0.14/0.39 # 1 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.14/0.39 # 13 unit axiom clauses % 0.14/0.39 % 0.14/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.14/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2 % 0.14/0.39 # Creating equality axioms % 0.14/0.39 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 0.14/0.39 # Returning from population with 21 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.14/0.39 # We now have 21 tableaux to operate on % 80.52/10.58 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 80.52/10.58 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 80.52/10.58 # SZS status Unsatisfiable for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 80.52/10.58 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 80.52/10.58 # Begin clausification derivation % 80.52/10.58 % 80.52/10.58 # End clausification derivation % 80.52/10.58 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (converse(converse(X1))=X1)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_29, negated_conjecture, (join(sk1,one)=one)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (composition(X1,one)=X1)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (join(X1,complement(X1))=top)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (join(X1,X2)=join(X2,X1))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (converse(join(X1,X2))=join(converse(X1),converse(X2)))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (converse(composition(X1,X2))=composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (complement(join(complement(X1),complement(complement(X1))))=zero)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (join(join(X1,X2),X3)=join(X1,join(X2,X3)))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (composition(composition(X1,X2),X3)=composition(X1,composition(X2,X3)))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3))=composition(join(X1,X2),X3))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (join(composition(converse(X1),complement(composition(X1,X2))),complement(X2))=complement(X2))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (join(complement(join(complement(X1),complement(X2))),complement(join(complement(X1),X2)))=X1)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_30, negated_conjecture, (join(complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(composition(sk1,sk3))))),complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(sk3)))))!=complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(sk3))))|join(complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(sk3)))),complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(composition(sk1,sk3))))))!=complement(join(complement(composition(sk1,sk2)),complement(complement(composition(sk1,sk3))))))). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (X4=X4)). % 80.52/10.58 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 80.52/10.58 # Begin printing tableau % 80.52/10.58 # Found 8 steps % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(start_rule)). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (converse(converse(X5))=X5), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_46])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_79, plain, (converse(converse(X3))!=X3), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_23])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_78, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=composition(X3,X5)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_43])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_91, plain, (converse(converse(composition(X3,X5)))!=composition(X3,X5)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_23])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_89, plain, (composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5)))=converse(converse(composition(X3,X5)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_44])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_463146, plain, (converse(converse(X6))!=X6), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_23])). % 80.52/10.58 cnf(i_0_463144, plain, (join(composition(converse(converse(X3)),converse(converse(X5))),converse(converse(X6)))=join(converse(converse(composition(X3,X5))),X6)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_463144, ...])). % 80.52/10.58 # End printing tableau % 80.52/10.58 # SZS output end % 80.52/10.58 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 80.52/10.60 # Child (29493) has found a proof. % 80.52/10.60 % 80.52/10.60 # Proof search is over... % 80.52/10.60 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------