TSTP Solution File: SET907+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET907+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n009.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 00:55:20 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 1.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 39 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 34 ( 14 ~; 9 |; 7 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 ( 3 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t48_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( in(X1,X2)
& in(X3,X2) )
=> set_union2(unordered_pair(X1,X3),X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t48_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(commutativity_k2_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : set_union2(X1,X2) = set_union2(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',commutativity_k2_xboole_0) ).
fof(t12_xboole_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(X1,X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t12_xboole_1) ).
fof(t38_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( subset(unordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
<=> ( in(X1,X3)
& in(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t38_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( in(X1,X2)
& in(X3,X2) )
=> set_union2(unordered_pair(X1,X3),X2) = X2 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t48_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( in(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& in(esk3_0,esk2_0)
& set_union2(unordered_pair(esk1_0,esk3_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0 ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X3,X4] : set_union2(X3,X4) = set_union2(X4,X3),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k2_xboole_0]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ subset(X3,X4)
| set_union2(X3,X4) = X4 ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t12_xboole_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(unordered_pair(esk1_0,esk3_0),esk2_0) != esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
set_union2(X1,X2) = set_union2(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( set_union2(X1,X2) = X2
| ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(esk2_0,unordered_pair(esk1_0,esk3_0)) != esk2_0,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( set_union2(X1,X2) = X1
| ~ subset(X2,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( in(X4,X6)
| ~ subset(unordered_pair(X4,X5),X6) )
& ( in(X5,X6)
| ~ subset(unordered_pair(X4,X5),X6) )
& ( ~ in(X4,X6)
| ~ in(X5,X6)
| subset(unordered_pair(X4,X5),X6) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t38_zfmisc_1])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(unordered_pair(esk1_0,esk3_0),esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( subset(unordered_pair(X1,X2),X3)
| ~ in(X2,X3)
| ~ in(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
in(esk3_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.14/0.13 % Problem : SET907+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.14/0.14 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n009.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 : Sat Jul 9 21:45:52 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % 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 : 0.015 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 : 19
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object clause steps : 10
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 0.26/1.43 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.26/1.43 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.26/1.43 # Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.26/1.43 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4
% 0.26/1.43 # Initial clauses : 12
% 0.26/1.43 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.26/1.43 # Processed clauses : 23
% 0.26/1.43 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.26/1.43 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # ...remaining for further processing : 21
% 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 : 1
% 0.26/1.43 # Generated clauses : 30
% 0.26/1.43 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 24
% 0.26/1.43 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Paramodulations : 30
% 0.26/1.43 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of processed clauses : 20
% 0.26/1.43 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.26/1.43 # Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.26/1.43 # Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.26/1.43 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 13
% 0.26/1.43 # ...number of literals in the above : 26
% 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) : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.26/1.43 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.26/1.43 # BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.26/1.43 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/1.43 # Termbank termtop insertions : 708
% 0.26/1.43
% 0.26/1.43 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/1.43 # User time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/1.43 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/1.43 # Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.26/1.43 # Maximum resident set size: 2772 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------