TSTP Solution File: SEU125+2 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SEU125+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : n015.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 09:23:58 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 86.82s 11.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 86.82s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : SEU125+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.04/0.14 % 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 : n015.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 : Sun Jun 19 00:35:14 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.39 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.39 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S2mI
% 0.21/0.39 # and selection function SelectCQArNTNpEqFirst.
% 0.21/0.39 #
% 0.21/0.39 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.39 # Number of axioms: 50 Number of unprocessed: 48
% 0.21/0.39 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.21/0.39 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.21/0.39 # Hello from C++
% 0.21/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.21/0.39 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.21/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.21/0.39 # 48 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.21/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 3 conjectures.
% 0.21/0.39 # There are 3 start rule candidates:
% 0.21/0.39 # Found 15 unit axioms.
% 0.21/0.39 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.21/0.39 # 3 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.21/0.39 # 33 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.21/0.39 # 15 unit axiom clauses
% 0.21/0.39
% 0.21/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.21/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 3
% 0.21/0.39 # Returning from population with 9 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.21/0.39 # We now have 9 tableaux to operate on
% 5.28/1.05 # Creating equality axioms
% 5.28/1.05 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 6.05/1.17 # Creating equality axioms
% 6.05/1.17 # Ran out of tableaux, making start rules for all clauses
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 14 total branch saturation attempts.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 86.82/11.39 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 86.82/11.39 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 86.82/11.39 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 86.82/11.39 # Begin clausification derivation
% 86.82/11.39
% 86.82/11.39 # End clausification derivation
% 86.82/11.39 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_53, negated_conjecture, (subset(esk9_0,esk10_0))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_52, negated_conjecture, (subset(esk11_0,esk10_0))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (empty(empty_set))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (empty(esk5_0))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_40, lemma, (subset(empty_set,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (set_union2(X1,empty_set)=X1)).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (set_union2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_49, lemma, (subset(X1,set_union2(X1,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (set_union2(X1,X2)=set_union2(X2,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X2)=set_intersection2(X2,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_51, negated_conjecture, (~subset(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (~empty(esk6_0))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (~in(X1,empty_set))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_48, plain, (~empty(X1)|~in(X2,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_47, plain, (X1=empty_set|~empty(X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_44, lemma, (X1=empty_set|~subset(X1,empty_set))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~in(X1,X2)|~in(X2,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_45, lemma, (~disjoint(X1,X2)|~in(X3,set_intersection2(X1,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_41, lemma, (~disjoint(X1,X2)|~in(X3,X2)|~in(X3,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X2,X1)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X1,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_50, plain, (X1=X2|~empty(X2)|~empty(X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (X1=empty_set|in(esk1_1(X1),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X2)=empty_set|~disjoint(X1,X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (disjoint(X1,X2)|set_intersection2(X1,X2)!=empty_set)).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (disjoint(X1,X2)|~disjoint(X2,X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (in(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~in(X1,X3))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_39, lemma, (subset(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~subset(X1,X3))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_42, lemma, (disjoint(X1,X2)|in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_43, lemma, (disjoint(X1,X2)|in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (in(X1,set_union2(X2,X3))|~in(X1,X3))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (in(X1,X2)|~in(X1,set_intersection2(X3,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (in(X1,set_union2(X2,X3))|~in(X1,X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (in(X1,X2)|~in(X1,set_intersection2(X2,X3)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_46, lemma, (disjoint(X1,X2)|in(esk8_2(X1,X2),set_intersection2(X1,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (in(X1,set_intersection2(X2,X3))|~in(X1,X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (in(X1,X2)|in(X1,X3)|~in(X1,set_union2(X3,X2)))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (X1=set_union2(X2,X3)|~in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X1)|~in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X3))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (X1=set_union2(X2,X3)|~in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X1)|~in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=set_intersection2(X2,X3)|~in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X1)|~in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X3)|~in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X2))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (X1=set_intersection2(X2,X3)|in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X3)|in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (X1=set_intersection2(X2,X3)|in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X2)|in(esk4_3(X2,X3,X1),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=set_union2(X2,X3)|in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X2)|in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X3)|in(esk2_3(X2,X3,X1),X1))).
% 86.82/11.39 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 86.82/11.39 # Begin printing tableau
% 86.82/11.39 # Found 5 steps
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_51, negated_conjecture, (~subset(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_63, plain, (~subset(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_15])).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_101, plain, (~in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),esk10_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_17])).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_843965, plain, (~subset(empty_set,esk10_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_40])).
% 86.82/11.39 cnf(i_0_843966, plain, (~in(esk3_2(set_union2(esk9_0,esk11_0),esk10_0),empty_set)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_843966, ...])).
% 86.82/11.39 # End printing tableau
% 86.82/11.39 # SZS output end
% 86.82/11.39 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 86.82/11.39 # Child (29929) has found a proof.
% 86.82/11.39
% 86.82/11.39 # Proof search is over...
% 86.82/11.39 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------