%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : SWX199+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0. % 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 : n009.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 : 300s % DateTime : Tue May 5 07:00:42 PM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 0.18s 0.41s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SWX199+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v9.3.0. % 0.00/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.15/0.33 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu % 0.15/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.15/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.15/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.15/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.15/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.15/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.15/0.33 % DateTime : Tue May 5 11:11:25 EDT 2026 % 0.15/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.18/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.18/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN % 0.18/0.36 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn. % 0.18/0.36 # % 0.18/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.18/0.36 # Number of axioms: 14 Number of unprocessed: 14 % 0.18/0.36 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.18/0.36 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.18/0.36 # Hello from C++ % 0.18/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.18/0.36 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.18/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.18/0.36 # 14 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.18/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures. % 0.18/0.36 # There are 1 start rule candidates: % 0.18/0.36 # Found 9 unit axioms. % 0.18/0.36 # 1 start rule tableaux created. % 0.18/0.36 # 5 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.18/0.36 # 9 unit axiom clauses % 0.18/0.36 % 0.18/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.18/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1 % 0.18/0.36 # Creating equality axioms % 0.18/0.36 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses % 0.18/0.36 # Returning from population with 25 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 0.18/0.36 # We now have 25 tableaux to operate on % 0.18/0.41 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 0.18/0.41 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 0.18/0.41 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.18/0.41 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 0.18/0.41 # Begin clausification derivation % 0.18/0.41 % 0.18/0.41 # End clausification derivation % 0.18/0.41 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (merge(nil,X1)=X1)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (proj1S(s(X1))=X1)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (leqNat(z,X1))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (head(cons(X1,X2))=X1)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (tail(cons(X1,X2))=X2)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (merge(cons(X1,X2),nil)=cons(X1,X2))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (s(X1)!=z)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (cons(X1,X2)!=nil)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (~leqNat(s(X1),z))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (leqNat(X1,X2)|~leqNat(s(X1),s(X2)))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (leqNat(s(X1),s(X2))|~leqNat(X1,X2))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (merge(cons(X1,X2),cons(X3,X4))=cons(X3,merge(cons(X1,X2),X4))|leqNat(X1,X3))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_14, negated_conjecture, (merge(X1,X2)=merge(X2,X1)|merge(X3,X2)!=merge(X2,X3)|merge(X3,X1)!=merge(X1,X3))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (merge(cons(X1,X2),cons(X3,X4))=cons(X1,merge(X2,cons(X3,X4)))|~leqNat(X1,X3))). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_95, plain, (X36=X36)). % 0.18/0.41 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 0.18/0.41 # Begin printing tableau % 0.18/0.41 # Found 6 steps % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (merge(nil,z)=z), inference(start_rule)). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_106, plain, (merge(nil,z)=z), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_104])). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_156, plain, (leqNat(s(s(X5)),z)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_7])). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_157, plain, (s(s(X5))!=merge(nil,s(X5))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_10])). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_159, plain, (~leqNat(merge(nil,s(X5)),merge(nil,z))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_9])). % 0.18/0.41 cnf(i_0_164, plain, (~leqNat(s(merge(nil,s(X5))),s(merge(nil,z)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_164, ...])). % 0.18/0.41 # End printing tableau % 0.18/0.41 # SZS output end % 0.18/0.41 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 0.18/0.42 # Child (19279) has found a proof. % 0.18/0.42 % 0.18/0.42 # Proof search is over... % 0.18/0.42 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------