TSTP Solution File: SET634+3 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET634+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 : n012.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 01:01:36 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 2.63s 2.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.63s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.10/0.13 % Problem : SET634+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.10/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 00:24:43 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.14/0.38 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.14/0.38 #
% 0.14/0.38 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.38 # Number of axioms: 19 Number of unprocessed: 17
% 0.14/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.14/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.14/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 0.20/0.42 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.20/0.42 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.20/0.42 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.20/0.42 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.20/0.42 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.20/0.42 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.20/0.42 # Found 3 unit axioms.
% 0.20/0.42 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.20/0.42 # 14 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.20/0.42 # 3 unit axiom clauses
% 0.20/0.42
% 0.20/0.42 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.20/0.42 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 2.63/2.87 # Returning from population with 10 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 2.63/2.87 # We now have 10 tableaux to operate on
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 11 total branch saturation attempts.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 5 free duplicated saturations.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 7 total successful branch saturations.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin clausification derivation
% 2.63/2.89
% 2.63/2.89 # End clausification derivation
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin printing tableau
% 2.63/2.89 # Found 8 steps
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(start_rule)).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_14])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_19])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_60, ...])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496090, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496089, plain, (~subset(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_20])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496102, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496103, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496103, ...])).
% 2.63/2.89 # End printing tableau
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS output end
% 2.63/2.89 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 12 total branch saturation attempts.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 5 free duplicated saturations.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 8 total successful branch saturations.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 2.63/2.89 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin clausification derivation
% 2.63/2.89
% 2.63/2.89 # End clausification derivation
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.63/2.89 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 2.63/2.89 # Begin printing tableau
% 2.63/2.89 # Found 9 steps
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(start_rule)).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_14])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_6])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_60, ...])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_375566, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_7])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_375568, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496116, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496109, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(X6,difference(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496109, ...])).
% 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496117, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496117, ...])).
% 2.63/2.89 # End printing tableau
% 2.63/2.89 # SZS output end
% 2.63/2.89 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 2.71/2.90 # Child (13149) has found a proof.
% 2.71/2.90
% 2.71/2.90 # Proof search is over...
% 2.71/2.90 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------