TSTP Solution File: SEU172+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU172+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n027.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 09:17:27 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 49 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 20 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 55 ( 21 ~; 19 |; 10 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 6 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t54_subset_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( element(X3,powerset(X1))
=> ~ ( in(X2,subset_complement(X1,X3))
& in(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t54_subset_1) ).
fof(d4_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( X3 = set_difference(X1,X2)
<=> ! [X4] :
( in(X4,X3)
<=> ( in(X4,X1)
& ~ in(X4,X2) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d4_xboole_0) ).
fof(d5_subset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( element(X2,powerset(X1))
=> subset_complement(X1,X2) = set_difference(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d5_subset_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( element(X3,powerset(X1))
=> ~ ( in(X2,subset_complement(X1,X3))
& in(X2,X3) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t54_subset_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X8,X8,X5,X6,X7] :
( ( in(X8,X5)
| ~ in(X8,X7)
| X7 != set_difference(X5,X6) )
& ( ~ in(X8,X6)
| ~ in(X8,X7)
| X7 != set_difference(X5,X6) )
& ( ~ in(X8,X5)
| in(X8,X6)
| in(X8,X7)
| X7 != set_difference(X5,X6) )
& ( ~ in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X7)
| ~ in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X5)
| in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X6)
| X7 = set_difference(X5,X6) )
& ( in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X5)
| in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X7)
| X7 = set_difference(X5,X6) )
& ( ~ in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X6)
| in(esk10_3(X5,X6,X7),X7)
| X7 = set_difference(X5,X6) ) ),
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)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[d4_xboole_0])])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( element(esk3_0,powerset(esk1_0))
& in(esk2_0,subset_complement(esk1_0,esk3_0))
& in(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ element(X4,powerset(X3))
| subset_complement(X3,X4) = set_difference(X3,X4) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[d5_subset_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X1 != set_difference(X2,X3)
| ~ in(X4,X1)
| ~ in(X4,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,subset_complement(esk1_0,esk3_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( subset_complement(X1,X2) = set_difference(X1,X2)
| ~ element(X2,powerset(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
element(esk3_0,powerset(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ in(X1,set_difference(X2,X3))
| ~ in(X1,X3) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,set_difference(esk1_0,esk3_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
in(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11 % Problem : SEU172+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 06:22:08 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % 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 : 0.021 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 : 15
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 5
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 112
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 36
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses : 125
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 124
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 206
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 9
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 26
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 171
% 0.22/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 32
% 0.22/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 27
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 860
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 691
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 804
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 14
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 42
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 141
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 31
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 20
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 88
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 483
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 1322
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 28
% 0.22/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 996
% 0.22/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 729
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 12
% 0.22/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 374
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 35
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 12
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 13928
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.032 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.008 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3796 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------