TSTP Solution File: SET629+3 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET629+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n029.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 00:52:42 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 1.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 26 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 61 ( 3 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 64 ( 29 ~; 21 |; 10 &)
% ( 4 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 66 ( 16 sgn 39 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(difference_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( member(X3,difference(X1,X2))
<=> ( member(X3,X1)
& ~ member(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',difference_defn) ).
fof(intersect_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( intersect(X1,X2)
<=> ? [X3] :
( member(X3,X1)
& member(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',intersect_defn) ).
fof(intersection_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( member(X3,intersection(X1,X2))
<=> ( member(X3,X1)
& member(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',intersection_defn) ).
fof(prove_intersection_and_difference_disjoint,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] : disjoint(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',prove_intersection_and_difference_disjoint) ).
fof(disjoint_defn,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(X1,X2)
<=> ~ intersect(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',disjoint_defn) ).
fof(commutativity_of_intersection,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : intersection(X1,X2) = intersection(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',commutativity_of_intersection) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( member(X6,X4)
| ~ member(X6,difference(X4,X5)) )
& ( ~ member(X6,X5)
| ~ member(X6,difference(X4,X5)) )
& ( ~ member(X6,X4)
| member(X6,X5)
| member(X6,difference(X4,X5)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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)],[difference_defn])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X4,X5,X4,X5,X7] :
( ( member(esk3_2(X4,X5),X4)
| ~ intersect(X4,X5) )
& ( member(esk3_2(X4,X5),X5)
| ~ intersect(X4,X5) )
& ( ~ member(X7,X4)
| ~ member(X7,X5)
| intersect(X4,X5) ) ),
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)],[intersect_defn])])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( member(X6,X4)
| ~ member(X6,intersection(X4,X5)) )
& ( member(X6,X5)
| ~ member(X6,intersection(X4,X5)) )
& ( ~ member(X6,X4)
| ~ member(X6,X5)
| member(X6,intersection(X4,X5)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[intersection_defn])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] : disjoint(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X1,X2)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_intersection_and_difference_disjoint]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ member(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| ~ member(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( member(X1,X2)
| ~ member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(intersection(esk1_0,esk2_0),difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])])]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X3,X4,X3,X4] :
( ( ~ disjoint(X3,X4)
| ~ intersect(X3,X4) )
& ( intersect(X3,X4)
| disjoint(X3,X4) ) ),
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)],[disjoint_defn])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ intersect(X1,difference(X2,X3))
| ~ member(esk3_2(X1,difference(X2,X3)),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( member(esk3_2(intersection(X1,X2),X3),X1)
| ~ intersect(intersection(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
fof(c_0_18,plain,
! [X3,X4] : intersection(X3,X4) = intersection(X4,X3),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_of_intersection]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(intersection(esk1_0,esk2_0),difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( disjoint(X1,X2)
| intersect(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
~ intersect(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X3,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
intersection(X1,X2) = intersection(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
intersect(intersection(esk1_0,esk2_0),difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
~ intersect(intersection(X1,X2),difference(X3,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : SET629+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.04/0.14 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n029.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 : Sun Jul 10 10:05:16 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.26/1.43 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.26/1.43 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.26/1.43 # Preprocessing time : 0.016 s
% 0.26/1.43
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof found!
% 0.26/1.43 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/1.43 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object total steps : 26
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object clause steps : 13
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object formula steps : 13
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object initial clauses used : 7
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object initial formulas used : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object generating inferences : 5
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 1
% 0.26/1.43 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.26/1.43 # Parsed axioms : 8
% 0.26/1.43 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Initial clauses : 18
% 0.26/1.43 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.26/1.43 # Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.26/1.43 # Processed clauses : 44
% 0.26/1.43 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # ...subsumed : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # ...remaining for further processing : 38
% 0.26/1.43 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Generated clauses : 111
% 0.26/1.43 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 92
% 0.26/1.43 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Paramodulations : 108
% 0.26/1.43 # Factorizations : 2
% 0.26/1.43 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of processed clauses : 37
% 0.26/1.43 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.26/1.43 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.26/1.43 # Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.26/1.43 # Non-unit-clauses : 24
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 64
% 0.26/1.43 # ...number of literals in the above : 155
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.26/1.43 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 52
% 0.26/1.43 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 52
% 0.26/1.43 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.26/1.43 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.26/1.43 # BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.26/1.43 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2152
% 0.26/1.43
% 0.26/1.43 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/1.43 # User time : 0.017 s
% 0.26/1.43 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/1.43 # Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.26/1.43 # Maximum resident set size: 2772 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------