TSTP Solution File: SEU097+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU097+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n005.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 09:16:48 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 1.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 35 ( 3 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 29 ( 13 ~; 7 |; 5 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 1 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t28_finset_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( finite(X1)
& finite(X2) )
=> finite(symmetric_difference(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t28_finset_1) ).
fof(d6_xboole_0,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = set_union2(set_difference(X1,X2),set_difference(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',d6_xboole_0) ).
fof(fc9_finset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( finite(X1)
& finite(X2) )
=> finite(set_union2(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',fc9_finset_1) ).
fof(fc12_finset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( finite(X1)
=> finite(set_difference(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',fc12_finset_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( ( finite(X1)
& finite(X2) )
=> finite(symmetric_difference(X1,X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t28_finset_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( finite(esk1_0)
& finite(esk2_0)
& ~ finite(symmetric_difference(esk1_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] : symmetric_difference(X3,X4) = set_union2(set_difference(X3,X4),set_difference(X4,X3)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[d6_xboole_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ finite(symmetric_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
symmetric_difference(X1,X2) = set_union2(set_difference(X1,X2),set_difference(X2,X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ finite(X3)
| ~ finite(X4)
| finite(set_union2(X3,X4)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc9_finset_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ finite(set_union2(set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0),set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_0))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( finite(set_union2(X1,X2))
| ~ finite(X2)
| ~ finite(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ finite(X3)
| finite(set_difference(X3,X4)) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fc12_finset_1])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ finite(set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_0))
| ~ finite(set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( finite(set_difference(X1,X2))
| ~ finite(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
finite(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ finite(set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
finite(esk1_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(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_14]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SEU097+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Sat Jun 18 23:13:53 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/1.41 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.41 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.23/1.41 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/1.41
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof found!
% 0.23/1.41 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/1.41 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object total steps : 19
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object clause steps : 10
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object conjectures : 10
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object clause conjectures : 7
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object generating inferences : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 5
% 0.23/1.41 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.23/1.41 # Parsed axioms : 70
% 0.23/1.41 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 30
% 0.23/1.41 # Initial clauses : 60
% 0.23/1.41 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.23/1.41 # Initial clauses in saturation : 59
% 0.23/1.41 # Processed clauses : 71
% 0.23/1.41 # ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.23/1.41 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.23/1.41 # ...remaining for further processing : 66
% 0.23/1.41 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.23/1.41 # Generated clauses : 69
% 0.23/1.41 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 50
% 0.23/1.41 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Paramodulations : 69
% 0.23/1.41 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of processed clauses : 56
% 0.23/1.41 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 20
% 0.23/1.41 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.23/1.41 # Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.23/1.41 # Non-unit-clauses : 27
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.23/1.41 # ...number of literals in the above : 72
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.23/1.41 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 87
% 0.23/1.41 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 83
% 0.23/1.41 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.23/1.41 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 53
% 0.23/1.41 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.23/1.41 # BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.23/1.41 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.41 # Termbank termtop insertions : 3182
% 0.23/1.41
% 0.23/1.41 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.41 # User time : 0.018 s
% 0.23/1.41 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/1.41 # Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.23/1.41 # Maximum resident set size: 3064 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------