TSTP Solution File: SET162+4 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : SET162+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n020.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 00:10:03 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.65s 2.40s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.65s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   22 (   8 unt;   6 nHn;  14 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   41 (   0 equ;  18 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   37 (   5 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_18,plain,
    ( subset(X1,X2)
    | ~ member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_18) ).

cnf(i_0_26,plain,
    ( member(X1,union(X2,X3))
    | ~ member(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_26) ).

cnf(i_0_27,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | member(X1,X3)
    | ~ member(X1,union(X3,X2)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_27) ).

cnf(i_0_19,plain,
    ( subset(X1,X2)
    | member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_19) ).

cnf(i_0_24,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equal_set(union(esk4_0,empty_set),esk4_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_24) ).

cnf(i_0_5,plain,
    ( equal_set(X1,X2)
    | ~ subset(X2,X1)
    | ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_5) ).

cnf(i_0_4,plain,
    ~ member(X1,empty_set),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-qb7qtmmy/input.p',i_0_4) ).

cnf(c_0_35,plain,
    ( subset(X1,X2)
    | ~ member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
    i_0_18 ).

cnf(c_0_36,plain,
    ( member(X1,union(X2,X3))
    | ~ member(X1,X2) ),
    i_0_26 ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | member(X1,X3)
    | ~ member(X1,union(X3,X2)) ),
    i_0_27 ).

cnf(c_0_38,plain,
    ( subset(X1,X2)
    | member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
    i_0_19 ).

cnf(c_0_39,negated_conjecture,
    ~ equal_set(union(esk4_0,empty_set),esk4_0),
    i_0_24 ).

cnf(c_0_40,plain,
    ( equal_set(X1,X2)
    | ~ subset(X2,X1)
    | ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
    i_0_5 ).

cnf(c_0_41,plain,
    ( subset(X1,union(X2,X3))
    | ~ member(esk2_2(X1,union(X2,X3)),X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_35,c_0_36]) ).

cnf(c_0_42,plain,
    ~ member(X1,empty_set),
    i_0_4 ).

cnf(c_0_43,plain,
    ( subset(union(X1,X2),X3)
    | member(esk2_2(union(X1,X2),X3),X1)
    | member(esk2_2(union(X1,X2),X3),X2) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_37,c_0_38]) ).

cnf(c_0_44,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ subset(esk4_0,union(esk4_0,empty_set))
    | ~ subset(union(esk4_0,empty_set),esk4_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_39,c_0_40]) ).

cnf(c_0_45,plain,
    subset(X1,union(X1,X2)),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_41,c_0_38]) ).

cnf(c_0_46,plain,
    ( subset(union(X1,empty_set),X2)
    | member(esk2_2(union(X1,empty_set),X2),X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_42,c_0_43]) ).

cnf(c_0_47,negated_conjecture,
    ~ subset(union(esk4_0,empty_set),esk4_0),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_44,c_0_45])]) ).

cnf(c_0_48,plain,
    subset(union(X1,empty_set),X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_35,c_0_46]) ).

cnf(c_0_49,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_47,c_0_48])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11  % Problem  : SET162+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.06/0.12  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n020.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 : Mon Jul 11 10:21:44 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.19/0.44  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.19/0.44  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.44  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.19/0.44  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.19/0.44  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 7.65/2.40  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 7.65/2.40  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.65/2.40  # Preprocessing time       : 0.015 s
% 7.65/2.40  
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof found!
% 7.65/2.40  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.65/2.40  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object total steps             : 22
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object clause steps            : 15
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object formula steps           : 7
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object conjectures             : 5
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 4
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 1
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 7
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 7
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object generating inferences   : 6
% 7.65/2.40  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 4
% 7.65/2.40  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.65/2.40  # Parsed axioms                        : 30
% 7.65/2.40  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Initial clauses                      : 30
% 7.65/2.40  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 30
% 7.65/2.40  # Processed clauses                    : 138
% 7.65/2.40  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # ...subsumed                          : 11
% 7.65/2.40  # ...remaining for further processing  : 127
% 7.65/2.40  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 7
% 7.65/2.40  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Backward-subsumed                    : 1
% 7.65/2.40  # Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 7.65/2.40  # Generated clauses                    : 765
% 7.65/2.40  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 733
% 7.65/2.40  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Paramodulations                      : 744
% 7.65/2.40  # Factorizations                       : 14
% 7.65/2.40  # Equation resolutions                 : 7
% 7.65/2.40  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Current number of processed clauses  : 121
% 7.65/2.40  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 40
% 7.65/2.40  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.65/2.40  #    Negative unit clauses             : 34
% 7.65/2.40  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 47
% 7.65/2.40  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 610
% 7.65/2.40  # ...number of literals in the above   : 1065
% 7.65/2.40  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 7.65/2.40  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 323
% 7.65/2.40  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 292
% 7.65/2.40  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 4
% 7.65/2.40  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 245
% 7.65/2.40  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 53
% 7.65/2.40  # BW rewrite match successes           : 3
% 7.65/2.40  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.65/2.40  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 7578
% 7.65/2.40  
% 7.65/2.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.65/2.40  # User time                : 0.025 s
% 7.65/2.40  # System time              : 0.003 s
% 7.65/2.40  # Total time               : 0.028 s
% 7.65/2.40  # ...preprocessing         : 0.015 s
% 7.65/2.40  # ...main loop             : 0.014 s
% 7.65/2.40  # Maximum resident set size: 7132 pages
% 7.65/2.40  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------