TSTP Solution File: SET936+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SET936+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 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 : n010.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 01:03:59 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 2.77s 3.02s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.77s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SET936+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n010.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 : Sun Jul 10 01:56:15 EDT 2022
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C01_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.21/0.38 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.21/0.38 #
% 0.21/0.38 # Number of axioms: 22 Number of unprocessed: 22
% 0.21/0.38 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.21/0.38 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.21/0.38 # Hello from C++
% 0.93/1.10 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.93/1.10 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.93/1.10 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.93/1.10 # 22 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.93/1.10 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures.
% 0.93/1.10 # There are 1 start rule candidates:
% 0.93/1.10 # Found 7 unit axioms.
% 0.93/1.10 # 1 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.93/1.10 # 15 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.93/1.10 # 7 unit axiom clauses
% 0.93/1.10
% 0.93/1.10 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.93/1.10 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1
% 2.74/2.91 # Returning from population with 10 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 2.74/2.91 # We now have 10 tableaux to operate on
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 10 total branch saturation attempts.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 3 of these attempts blocked.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 3 free duplicated saturations.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 6 total successful branch saturations.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 2.77/3.02 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 2.77/3.02 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.77/3.02 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 2.77/3.02 # Begin clausification derivation
% 2.77/3.02
% 2.77/3.02 # End clausification derivation
% 2.77/3.02 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (empty(esk3_0))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (~empty(esk4_0))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (subset(X1,X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X2)=set_intersection2(X2,X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (subset(set_intersection2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~in(X2,X1)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (in(X1,X3)|X3!=powerset(X2)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (subset(X1,X3)|X2!=powerset(X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (subset(X1,X3)|~subset(X2,X3)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (in(X1,X2)|X3!=set_intersection2(X4,X2)|~in(X1,X3))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (in(X1,X2)|X3!=set_intersection2(X2,X4)|~in(X1,X3))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_22, negated_conjecture, (set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))!=powerset(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0)))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (X1=X2|in(esk5_2(X1,X2),X2)|in(esk5_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (in(X1,X4)|X4!=set_intersection2(X2,X3)|~in(X1,X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,set_intersection2(X2,X3))|~subset(X1,X3)|~subset(X1,X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (X2=powerset(X1)|in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|subset(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (X1=X2|~in(esk5_2(X1,X2),X2)|~in(esk5_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (X2=powerset(X1)|~in(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~subset(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X2))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X2)|~in(esk2_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 2.77/3.02 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 2.77/3.02 # Begin printing tableau
% 2.77/3.02 # Found 6 steps
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_22, negated_conjecture, (set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))!=powerset(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0))), inference(start_rule)).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))!=powerset(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_4])).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_58, plain, (~in(esk1_2(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_5])).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_307224, plain, (~subset(esk1_2(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))),esk1_2(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_16])).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (~subset(esk1_2(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))),set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_59, ...])).
% 2.77/3.02 cnf(i_0_307223, plain, (set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))!=powerset(esk1_2(set_intersection2(esk6_0,esk7_0),set_intersection2(powerset(esk6_0),powerset(esk7_0))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_307223, ...])).
% 2.77/3.02 # End printing tableau
% 2.77/3.02 # SZS output end
% 2.77/3.02 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 2.77/3.04 # Child (21726) has found a proof.
% 2.77/3.04
% 2.77/3.04 # Proof search is over...
% 2.77/3.04 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------