TSTP Solution File: SET622+3 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET622+3 : 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 01:01:27 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.14 % Problem : SET622+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.14/0.15 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.15/0.36 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.36 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.15/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Jul 10 00:36:01 EDT 2022
% 0.15/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.40 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.40 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/0.40 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.15/0.40 #
% 0.15/0.40 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.40 # Number of axioms: 25 Number of unprocessed: 22
% 0.15/0.40 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.15/0.40 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.15/0.40 # Hello from C++
% 0.15/0.41 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.15/0.41 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.15/0.41 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.15/0.41 # 22 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.15/0.41 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.15/0.41 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.15/0.41 # Found 7 unit axioms.
% 0.15/0.41 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.15/0.41 # 15 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.15/0.41 # 7 unit axiom clauses
% 0.15/0.41
% 0.15/0.41 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.15/0.41 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 2 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.15/0.41 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.15/0.41 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.41 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.41 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.15/0.41
% 0.15/0.41 # End clausification derivation
% 0.15/0.41 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (intersection(intersection(X1,X2),X3)=intersection(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (union(difference(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X3))=difference(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (union(difference(X1,X2),difference(X2,X1))=difference(union(X1,X2),intersection(X1,X2)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (union(X1,X2)=union(X2,X1))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_28, negated_conjecture, (union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0)))!=difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,X2)|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,union(X2,X3)))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.15/0.41 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.15/0.41 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.15/0.41 # Found 5 steps
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_28, negated_conjecture, (union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0)))!=difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0)))!=difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_20])).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_67, plain, (member(esk1_2(union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0))),difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))),union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0))))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_11])).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_68, plain, (member(esk1_2(union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0))),difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))),difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_68, ...])).
% 0.15/0.41 cnf(i_0_69, plain, (~member(esk1_2(union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0))),difference(esk3_0,difference(union(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))),difference(X5,union(intersection(esk5_0,intersection(esk3_0,esk4_0)),difference(esk3_0,union(esk4_0,esk5_0)))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_69, ...])).
% 0.15/0.41 # End printing tableau
% 0.15/0.41 # SZS output end
% 0.15/0.41 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.15/0.41 # Returning from population with 3 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.15/0.41 # We now have 3 tableaux to operate on
% 0.15/0.41 # Found closed tableau during pool population.
% 0.15/0.41 # Proof search is over...
% 0.15/0.41 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------