TSTP Solution File: SET690+4 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET690+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 : n003.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 01:02:02 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : SET690+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
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 02:33:15 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI
% 0.12/0.37 # and selection function SelectComplexExceptUniqMaxHorn.
% 0.12/0.37 #
% 0.12/0.37 # Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/0.37 # Number of axioms: 31 Number of unprocessed: 31
% 0.12/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.12/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.12/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 0.12/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.12/0.37 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.12/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.12/0.37 # 31 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.12/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures.
% 0.12/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates:
% 0.12/0.37 # Found 4 unit axioms.
% 0.12/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.12/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.12/0.37 # 27 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.12/0.37 # 4 unit axiom clauses
% 0.12/0.37
% 0.12/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.12/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2
% 0.12/0.37 # Returning from population with 12 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.12/0.37 # We now have 12 tableaux to operate on
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 3 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.12/0.39 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.12/0.39 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.12/0.39 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.12/0.39 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.12/0.39
% 0.12/0.39 # End clausification derivation
% 0.12/0.39 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,singleton(X1)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (member(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X1)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (member(X1,unordered_pair(X1,X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (~member(X1,empty_set))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (~equal_set(union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)))|~subset(esk6_0,esk4_0))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_30, negated_conjecture, (equal_set(union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)))|subset(esk6_0,esk4_0))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~equal_set(X2,X1))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~equal_set(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=X2|~member(X1,singleton(X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (member(X1,power_set(X2))|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(X1,power_set(X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (equal_set(X1,X2)|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,X3)|~subset(X3,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (member(X1,product(X2))|~member(X1,esk3_2(X1,X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (X1=X2|X1=X3|~member(X1,unordered_pair(X2,X3)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (member(X1,X2)|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,union(X2,X3)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2)|member(X1,product(X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (member(X1,esk2_2(X1,X2))|~member(X1,sum(X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(X1,sum(X2)))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,product(X3))|~member(X2,X3))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (member(X1,sum(X2))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X3,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))).
% 0.12/0.39 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.12/0.39 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.12/0.39 # Found 6 steps
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_31, negated_conjecture, (~equal_set(union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)))|~subset(esk6_0,esk4_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (~equal_set(union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_4])).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_178, plain, (~subset(intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)),union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_6])).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (~subset(esk6_0,esk4_0)), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_38, ...])).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_179, plain, (~subset(union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_179, ...])).
% 0.12/0.39 cnf(i_0_290, plain, (~equal_set(intersection(esk4_0,union(esk5_0,esk6_0)),union(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_290, ...])).
% 0.12/0.39 # End printing tableau
% 0.12/0.39 # SZS output end
% 0.12/0.39 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.12/0.39 # Child (30260) has found a proof.
% 0.12/0.39
% 0.12/0.39 # Proof search is over...
% 0.12/0.39 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------