TSTP Solution File: SEU137+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU137+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n011.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 09:17:03 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 19 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 12 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t45_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> X2 = set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t45_xboole_1) ).
fof(t39_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] : set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) = set_union2(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t39_xboole_1) ).
fof(t12_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> set_union2(X1,X2) = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t12_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,X2)
=> X2 = set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t45_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( subset(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& esk2_0 != set_union2(esk1_0,set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X3,X4] : set_union2(X3,set_difference(X4,X3)) = set_union2(X3,X4),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t39_xboole_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != set_union2(esk1_0,set_difference(esk2_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
set_union2(X1,set_difference(X2,X1)) = set_union2(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_8,lemma,
! [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_9,negated_conjecture,
set_union2(esk1_0,esk2_0) != esk2_0,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( set_union2(X1,X2) = X2
| ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.09/0.11 % Problem : SEU137+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.09/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n011.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 : Mon Jun 20 09:04:09 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 6
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 1
% 0.22/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 3
% 0.22/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 50
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses : 66
% 0.22/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 66
% 0.22/1.40 # Processed clauses : 71
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 69
% 0.22/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 20
% 0.22/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Generated clauses : 268
% 0.22/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 195
% 0.22/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Paramodulations : 225
% 0.22/1.40 # Factorizations : 14
% 0.22/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 29
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 54
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 37
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 144
% 0.22/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 370
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 13
% 0.22/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 441
% 0.22/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 306
% 0.22/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.22/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 66
% 0.22/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 19
% 0.22/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 16
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 5241
% 0.22/1.40
% 0.22/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.40 # User time : 0.022 s
% 0.22/1.40 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.22/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3064 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------