TSTP Solution File: SET941+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET941+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% 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 : Tue Jul 19 00:55:37 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 1.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 2 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 74 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 87 ( 33 ~; 37 |; 9 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 2 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 50 ( 5 sgn 26 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t94_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> subset(X3,X2) )
=> subset(union(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t94_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(d3_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> in(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d3_tarski) ).
fof(d4_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( X2 = union(X1)
<=> ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X2)
<=> ? [X4] :
( in(X3,X4)
& in(X4,X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d4_tarski) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ! [X3] :
( in(X3,X1)
=> subset(X3,X2) )
=> subset(union(X1),X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t94_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6,X4,X5] :
( ( ~ subset(X4,X5)
| ~ in(X6,X4)
| in(X6,X5) )
& ( in(esk3_2(X4,X5),X4)
| subset(X4,X5) )
& ( ~ in(esk3_2(X4,X5),X5)
| subset(X4,X5) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d3_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X6] :
( ( ~ in(X6,esk1_0)
| subset(X6,esk2_0) )
& ~ subset(union(esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( in(X1,X2)
| ~ in(X1,X3)
| ~ subset(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( subset(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ in(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X7,X9,X5,X6,X11] :
( ( in(X7,esk4_3(X5,X6,X7))
| ~ in(X7,X6)
| X6 != union(X5) )
& ( in(esk4_3(X5,X6,X7),X5)
| ~ in(X7,X6)
| X6 != union(X5) )
& ( ~ in(X7,X9)
| ~ in(X9,X5)
| in(X7,X6)
| X6 != union(X5) )
& ( ~ in(esk5_2(X5,X6),X6)
| ~ in(esk5_2(X5,X6),X11)
| ~ in(X11,X5)
| X6 = union(X5) )
& ( in(esk5_2(X5,X6),esk6_2(X5,X6))
| in(esk5_2(X5,X6),X6)
| X6 = union(X5) )
& ( in(esk6_2(X5,X6),X5)
| in(esk5_2(X5,X6),X6)
| X6 = union(X5) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d4_tarski])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( in(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ in(X2,esk1_0)
| ~ in(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( in(esk4_3(X2,X1,X3),X2)
| X1 != union(X2)
| ~ in(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( in(X1,esk2_0)
| X2 != union(esk1_0)
| ~ in(X1,esk4_3(esk1_0,X2,X3))
| ~ in(X3,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( in(X3,esk4_3(X2,X1,X3))
| X1 != union(X2)
| ~ in(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( in(X1,esk2_0)
| X2 != union(esk1_0)
| ~ in(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( in(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ in(X1,union(esk1_0)) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| ~ in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( subset(union(esk1_0),X1)
| in(esk3_2(union(esk1_0),X1),esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(union(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SET941+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n023.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Jul 9 19:33:10 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.24/1.42 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.24/1.42 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.24/1.42 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.24/1.42
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof found!
% 0.24/1.42 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/1.42 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object total steps : 20
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object clause steps : 13
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object conjectures : 11
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object clause conjectures : 8
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object initial clauses used : 7
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 0.24/1.42 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.24/1.42 # Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.24/1.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.24/1.42 # Initial clauses : 13
% 0.24/1.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.24/1.42 # Processed clauses : 59
% 0.24/1.42 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.24/1.42 # ...subsumed : 4
% 0.24/1.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 53
% 0.24/1.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Generated clauses : 109
% 0.24/1.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 102
% 0.24/1.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Paramodulations : 104
% 0.24/1.42 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.24/1.42 # Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 53
% 0.24/1.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 49
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 56
% 0.24/1.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 252
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 472
% 0.24/1.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 235
% 0.24/1.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.24/1.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.24/1.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.24/1.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/1.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2532
% 0.24/1.42
% 0.24/1.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/1.42 # User time : 0.016 s
% 0.24/1.42 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/1.42 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/1.42 # Maximum resident set size: 3036 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------