TSTP Solution File: SET934+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET934+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 : n014.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 01:03:58 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.53s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.04/0.13 % Problem : SET934+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.04/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.15/0.35 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.15/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.15/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.15/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 10:29:49 EDT 2022
% 0.15/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.22/0.38 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.22/0.38 #
% 0.22/0.38 # Number of axioms: 24 Number of unprocessed: 24
% 0.22/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.22/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.22/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 0.50/0.66 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.50/0.66 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.50/0.66 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.50/0.66 # 24 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.50/0.66 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.50/0.66 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.50/0.66 # Found 7 unit axioms.
% 0.50/0.66 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.50/0.66 # 17 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.50/0.66 # 7 unit axiom clauses
% 0.50/0.66
% 0.50/0.66 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.50/0.66 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 1 total branch saturation attempts.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 1 total successful branch saturations.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 0.53/0.69 # There were 1 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 0.53/0.69 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.53/0.69 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.53/0.69 # Begin clausification derivation
% 0.53/0.69
% 0.53/0.69 # End clausification derivation
% 0.53/0.69 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (empty(esk4_0))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (~empty(esk5_0))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (set_union2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (set_union2(X1,X2)=set_union2(X2,X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (subset(X1,set_union2(X1,X2)))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~in(X2,X1)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X3!=powerset(X2)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (subset(X1,X3)|X2!=powerset(X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X2,X1)))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (empty(X1)|~empty(set_union2(X1,X2)))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (in(X3,X2)|~in(X3,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (subset(X1,X3)|~subset(X2,X3)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X3!=set_union2(X4,X2)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X3!=set_union2(X2,X4)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (in(X1,X4)|in(X1,X3)|X2!=set_union2(X3,X4)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~in(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (X2=powerset(X1)|in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|subset(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (X2=powerset(X1)|~in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~subset(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (~subset(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (X3=set_union2(X1,X2)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X2)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (X3=set_union2(X1,X2)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X2))).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X3=set_union2(X1,X2)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 0.53/0.69 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 0.53/0.69 # Begin printing tableau
% 0.53/0.69 # Found 5 steps
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_24, negated_conjecture, (~subset(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0)))), inference(start_rule)).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (~subset(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_57, plain, (~in(esk3_2(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_78, plain, (~subset(esk3_2(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))),esk3_2(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])).
% 0.53/0.69 cnf(i_0_77, plain, (powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))!=powerset(esk3_2(set_union2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)),powerset(set_union2(esk6_0,esk7_0))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_77, ...])).
% 0.53/0.69 # End printing tableau
% 0.53/0.69 # SZS output end
% 0.53/0.69 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 0.53/0.69 # Returning from population with 4 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.53/0.69 # We now have 4 tableaux to operate on
% 0.53/0.69 # Found closed tableau during pool population.
% 0.53/0.69 # Proof search is over...
% 0.53/0.69 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------