TSTP Solution File: SET800+4 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : SET800+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n007.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 00:14:15 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.63s 2.48s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.63s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    8
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   22 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;  22 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   36 (   0 equ;  17 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    6 (   5 usr;   1 prp; 0-4 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   6 con; 0-0 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   32 (   6 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_16,plain,
    ( lower_bound(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ greatest_lower_bound(X1,X3,X2,X4) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_16) ).

cnf(i_0_60,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(esk16_0,esk14_0,esk11_0,esk12_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_60) ).

cnf(i_0_33,plain,
    ( apply(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ member(X3,X4)
    | ~ lower_bound(X2,X1,X4) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_33) ).

cnf(i_0_59,negated_conjecture,
    ~ apply(esk11_0,esk16_0,esk15_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_59) ).

cnf(i_0_55,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | ~ member(X1,X3)
    | ~ subset(X3,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_55) ).

cnf(i_0_62,negated_conjecture,
    subset(esk13_0,esk14_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_62) ).

cnf(i_0_17,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | ~ greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_17) ).

cnf(i_0_61,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(esk15_0,esk13_0,esk11_0,esk12_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-y3xx2jmu/input.p',i_0_61) ).

cnf(c_0_71,plain,
    ( lower_bound(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ greatest_lower_bound(X1,X3,X2,X4) ),
    i_0_16 ).

cnf(c_0_72,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(esk16_0,esk14_0,esk11_0,esk12_0),
    i_0_60 ).

cnf(c_0_73,plain,
    ( apply(X1,X2,X3)
    | ~ member(X3,X4)
    | ~ lower_bound(X2,X1,X4) ),
    i_0_33 ).

cnf(c_0_74,negated_conjecture,
    lower_bound(esk16_0,esk11_0,esk14_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_71,c_0_72]) ).

cnf(c_0_75,negated_conjecture,
    ~ apply(esk11_0,esk16_0,esk15_0),
    i_0_59 ).

cnf(c_0_76,plain,
    ( apply(esk11_0,esk16_0,X1)
    | ~ member(X1,esk14_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_73,c_0_74]) ).

cnf(c_0_77,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | ~ member(X1,X3)
    | ~ subset(X3,X2) ),
    i_0_55 ).

cnf(c_0_78,negated_conjecture,
    subset(esk13_0,esk14_0),
    i_0_62 ).

cnf(c_0_79,plain,
    ( member(X1,X2)
    | ~ greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
    i_0_17 ).

cnf(c_0_80,negated_conjecture,
    greatest_lower_bound(esk15_0,esk13_0,esk11_0,esk12_0),
    i_0_61 ).

cnf(c_0_81,negated_conjecture,
    ~ member(esk15_0,esk14_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_75,c_0_76]) ).

cnf(c_0_82,negated_conjecture,
    ( member(X1,esk14_0)
    | ~ member(X1,esk13_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_77,c_0_78]) ).

cnf(c_0_83,negated_conjecture,
    member(esk15_0,esk13_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_79,c_0_80]) ).

cnf(c_0_84,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_81,c_0_82]),c_0_83])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.11  % Problem  : SET800+4 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.11/0.12  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33  % Computer : n007.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 : Sat Jul  9 23:07:33 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.44  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.18/0.45  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.18/0.45  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.18/0.45  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.18/0.45  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 7.63/2.48  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_S0Y:
% 7.63/2.48  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.63/2.48  # Preprocessing time       : 0.012 s
% 7.63/2.48  
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof found!
% 7.63/2.48  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.63/2.48  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object total steps             : 22
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object clause steps            : 14
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object formula steps           : 8
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object conjectures             : 13
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 9
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 4
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 8
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 8
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object generating inferences   : 6
% 7.63/2.48  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 2
% 7.63/2.48  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.63/2.48  # Parsed axioms                        : 143
% 7.63/2.48  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Initial clauses                      : 143
% 7.63/2.48  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 143
% 7.63/2.48  # Processed clauses                    : 179
% 7.63/2.48  # ...of these trivial                  : 5
% 7.63/2.48  # ...subsumed                          : 2
% 7.63/2.48  # ...remaining for further processing  : 172
% 7.63/2.48  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 3
% 7.63/2.48  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Generated clauses                    : 543
% 7.63/2.48  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 527
% 7.63/2.48  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Paramodulations                      : 540
% 7.63/2.48  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Equation resolutions                 : 3
% 7.63/2.48  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Current number of processed clauses  : 169
% 7.63/2.48  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 19
% 7.63/2.48  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.63/2.48  #    Negative unit clauses             : 9
% 7.63/2.48  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 141
% 7.63/2.48  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 488
% 7.63/2.48  # ...number of literals in the above   : 1797
% 7.63/2.48  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6874
% 7.63/2.48  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3358
% 7.63/2.48  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 923
% 7.63/2.48  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 14
% 7.63/2.48  # BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.63/2.48  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 11186
% 7.63/2.48  
% 7.63/2.48  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.63/2.48  # User time                : 0.019 s
% 7.63/2.48  # System time              : 0.004 s
% 7.63/2.48  # Total time               : 0.024 s
% 7.63/2.48  # ...preprocessing         : 0.012 s
% 7.63/2.48  # ...main loop             : 0.011 s
% 7.63/2.48  # Maximum resident set size: 7128 pages
% 7.63/2.48  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------