TSTP Solution File: SET888+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET888+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 : n024.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 01:03:37 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : SET888+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.12/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n024.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 : Sun Jul 10 21:58:58 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.37 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.37 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.19/0.37 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.19/0.37 #
% 0.19/0.37 # Number of axioms: 25 Number of unprocessed: 25
% 0.19/0.37 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.19/0.37 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.19/0.37 # Hello from C++
% 0.19/0.37 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.19/0.37 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.19/0.37 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.19/0.37 # 25 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.19/0.37 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures.
% 0.19/0.37 # There are 2 start rule candidates:
% 0.19/0.37 # Found 8 unit axioms.
% 0.19/0.37 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.19/0.37 # 2 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.19/0.37 # 17 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.19/0.37 # 8 unit axiom clauses
% 0.19/0.37
% 0.19/0.37 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.19/0.37 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2
% 0.19/0.37 # Returning from population with 9 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.19/0.37 # We now have 9 tableaux to operate on
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.19/0.39 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.39
% 0.19/0.39 # End clausification derivation
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (esk5_0!=esk6_0)).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (empty(esk3_0))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (~empty(esk4_0))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (set_union2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X1!=X2|X3!=singleton(X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (unordered_pair(X1,X2)=unordered_pair(X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (set_union2(X1,X2)=set_union2(X2,X1))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (X1=X3|X2!=singleton(X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X1!=X2|X3!=unordered_pair(X4,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X1!=X2|X3!=unordered_pair(X2,X4))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~in(X2,X1)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X4|X1=X3|X2!=unordered_pair(X3,X4)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X2,X1)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X1,X2)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (X2=singleton(X1)|esk1_2(X1,X2)=X1|in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (X2=singleton(X1)|esk1_2(X1,X2)!=X1|~in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (set_union2(set_difference(X1,X2),set_difference(X2,X1))=set_union2(set_difference(X2,X1),set_difference(X1,X2)))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0)))!=unordered_pair(esk5_0,esk6_0))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (in(X1,X3)|in(X1,set_union2(set_difference(X3,X2),set_difference(X2,X3)))|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (in(X1,X3)|in(X1,set_union2(set_difference(X2,X3),set_difference(X3,X2)))|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X3=unordered_pair(X1,X2)|esk2_3(X1,X2,X3)=X2|esk2_3(X1,X2,X3)=X1|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (in(X1,X3)|in(X1,X2)|~in(X1,set_union2(set_difference(X2,X3),set_difference(X3,X2))))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (~in(X1,X3)|~in(X1,X2)|~in(X1,set_union2(set_difference(X2,X3),set_difference(X3,X2))))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (X3=unordered_pair(X1,X2)|esk2_3(X1,X2,X3)!=X2|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3))).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (X3=unordered_pair(X1,X2)|esk2_3(X1,X2,X3)!=X1|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3))).
% 0.19/0.39 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.19/0.39 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.19/0.39 # Found 7 steps
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_25, negated_conjecture, (set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0)))!=unordered_pair(esk5_0,esk6_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0)))!=unordered_pair(esk5_0,esk6_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_9])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_64, plain, (esk2_3(esk5_0,esk6_0,set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0))))=esk6_0), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_7])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_131, plain, (set_union2(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk6_0))!=singleton(esk6_0)), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_18])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_65, plain, (esk2_3(esk5_0,esk6_0,set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0))))=esk5_0), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_65, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_66, plain, (in(esk2_3(esk5_0,esk6_0,set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0)))),set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_66, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 cnf(i_0_129, plain, (in(esk2_3(esk5_0,esk6_0,set_union2(set_difference(singleton(esk5_0),singleton(esk6_0)),set_difference(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk5_0)))),set_union2(singleton(esk6_0),singleton(esk6_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_129, ...])).
% 0.19/0.39 # End printing tableau
% 0.19/0.39 # SZS output end
% 0.19/0.39 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.19/0.39 # Child (1331) has found a proof.
% 0.19/0.39
% 0.19/0.39 # Proof search is over...
% 0.19/0.39 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------