TSTP Solution File: SET917+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SET917+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n028.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 00:55:26 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 8 ~; 6 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t58_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(singleton(X1),X2)
| set_intersection2(singleton(X1),X2) = singleton(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t58_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l28_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ~ in(X1,X2)
=> disjoint(singleton(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l28_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l32_zfmisc_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( in(X1,X2)
=> set_intersection2(X2,singleton(X1)) = singleton(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l32_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(commutativity_k3_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : set_intersection2(X1,X2) = set_intersection2(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',commutativity_k3_xboole_0) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( disjoint(singleton(X1),X2)
| set_intersection2(singleton(X1),X2) = singleton(X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t58_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0)
& set_intersection2(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) != singleton(esk1_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] :
( in(X3,X4)
| disjoint(singleton(X3),X4) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l28_zfmisc_1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ in(X3,X4)
| set_intersection2(X4,singleton(X3)) = singleton(X3) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l32_zfmisc_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ disjoint(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( disjoint(singleton(X1),X2)
| in(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X3,X4] : set_intersection2(X3,X4) = set_intersection2(X4,X3),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[commutativity_k3_xboole_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( set_intersection2(X1,singleton(X2)) = singleton(X2)
| ~ in(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
in(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
set_intersection2(singleton(esk1_0),esk2_0) != singleton(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
set_intersection2(X1,X2) = set_intersection2(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
set_intersection2(esk2_0,singleton(esk1_0)) = singleton(esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12 % Problem : SET917+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.11/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n028.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 12:25:42 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.23/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.014 s
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 17
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.23/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.23/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Processed clauses : 13
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.23/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.23/1.40 # Generated clauses : 7
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 6
% 0.23/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Paramodulations : 7
% 0.23/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.23/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.23/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.23/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 434
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.40 # User time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/1.40 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2772 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------