TSTP Solution File: SET012+4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET012+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 : n025.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 00:56:09 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 1.89s 2.17s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.89s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SET012+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sat Jul 9 19:08:46 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI
% 0.13/0.38 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.13/0.38 #
% 0.13/0.38 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.38 # Number of axioms: 31 Number of unprocessed: 31
% 0.13/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.13/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.13/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 1.66/1.81 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 1.66/1.81 # Local unification is enabled...
% 1.66/1.81 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 1.66/1.81 # 31 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 1.66/1.81 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures.
% 1.66/1.81 # There are 2 start rule candidates:
% 1.66/1.81 # Found 6 unit axioms.
% 1.66/1.81 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 1.66/1.81 # 2 start rule tableaux created.
% 1.66/1.81 # 25 extension rule candidate clauses
% 1.66/1.81 # 6 unit axiom clauses
% 1.66/1.81
% 1.66/1.81 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 1.66/1.81 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2
% 1.84/2.02 # Returning from population with 15 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 1.84/2.02 # We now have 15 tableaux to operate on
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 1.89/2.17 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 1.89/2.17 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.89/2.17 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 1.89/2.17 # Begin clausification derivation
% 1.89/2.17
% 1.89/2.17 # End clausification derivation
% 1.89/2.17 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (subset(esk4_0,esk5_0))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,singleton(X1)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (member(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X1)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_30, negated_conjecture, (~equal_set(difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0)),esk4_0))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (~member(X1,empty_set))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~equal_set(X2,X1))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~equal_set(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=X2|~member(X1,singleton(X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (member(X1,power_set(X2))|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(X1,power_set(X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|subset(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (equal_set(X1,X2)|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,X3)|~subset(X3,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (member(X1,product(X2))|~member(X1,esk3_2(X1,X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (X1=X2|X1=X3|~member(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X3)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (member(X1,esk2_2(X1,X2))|~member(X1,sum(X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)|member(X1,product(X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(X1,sum(X2)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (member(X1,X2)|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,union(X2,X3)))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,product(X3))|~member(X2,X3))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (member(X1,sum(X2))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X3,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 1.89/2.17 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 1.89/2.17 # Begin printing tableau
% 1.89/2.17 # Found 9 steps
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (subset(esk4_0,esk5_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (subset(esk4_0,esk5_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_3])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_116, plain, (member(esk1_2(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0))),esk5_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_188, plain, (member(esk1_2(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0))),union(esk5_0,X10))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_17])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_117, plain, (~member(esk1_2(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0))),esk4_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_2])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_207310, plain, (subset(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_4])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_207327, plain, (equal_set(difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0)),esk4_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_30])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_207297, plain, (~member(esk1_2(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0))),difference(X6,union(esk5_0,X10)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_207297, ...])).
% 1.89/2.17 cnf(i_0_207329, plain, (~subset(difference(esk5_0,difference(esk5_0,esk4_0)),esk4_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_207329, ...])).
% 1.89/2.17 # End printing tableau
% 1.89/2.17 # SZS output end
% 1.89/2.17 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 1.89/2.19 # Child (16150) has found a proof.
% 1.89/2.19
% 1.89/2.19 # Proof search is over...
% 1.89/2.19 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------