TSTP Solution File: SET063+3 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET063+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n004.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 : Tue Jul 19 00:48:34 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 22 ( 9 ~; 6 |; 4 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 3 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_subset_of_empty_set_is_empty_set,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( subset(X1,empty_set)
=> X1 = empty_set ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',prove_subset_of_empty_set_is_empty_set) ).
fof(equal_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X1 = X2
<=> ( subset(X1,X2)
& subset(X2,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',equal_defn) ).
fof(empty_set_subset,axiom,
! [X1] : subset(empty_set,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',empty_set_subset) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( subset(X1,empty_set)
=> X1 = empty_set ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_subset_of_empty_set_is_empty_set]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X3,X4,X3,X4] :
( ( subset(X3,X4)
| X3 != X4 )
& ( subset(X4,X3)
| X3 != X4 )
& ( ~ subset(X3,X4)
| ~ subset(X4,X3)
| X3 = X4 ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[equal_defn])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( subset(esk1_0,empty_set)
& esk1_0 != empty_set ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X2] : subset(empty_set,X2),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[empty_set_subset]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X1 = X2
| ~ subset(X2,X1)
| ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,empty_set),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
subset(empty_set,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != empty_set,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : SET063+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jul 10 21:41:37 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.014 s
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 12
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 5
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses : 11
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 454
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.013 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2764 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------