TSTP Solution File: SEU160+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU160+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n006.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 09:17:18 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 1.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 45 ( 23 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 39 ( 14 ~; 18 |; 4 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 5 sgn 15 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t39_zfmisc_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,singleton(X2))
<=> ( X1 = empty_set
| X1 = singleton(X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t39_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(l4_zfmisc_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,singleton(X2))
<=> ( X1 = empty_set
| X1 = singleton(X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l4_zfmisc_1) ).
fof(reflexivity_r1_tarski,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : subset(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',reflexivity_r1_tarski) ).
fof(t2_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1] : subset(empty_set,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t2_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( subset(X1,singleton(X2))
<=> ( X1 = empty_set
| X1 = singleton(X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t39_zfmisc_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X3,X4,X3,X4] :
( ( ~ subset(X3,singleton(X4))
| X3 = empty_set
| X3 = singleton(X4) )
& ( X3 != empty_set
| subset(X3,singleton(X4)) )
& ( X3 != singleton(X4)
| subset(X3,singleton(X4)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l4_zfmisc_1])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( esk1_0 != empty_set
| ~ subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0)) )
& ( esk1_0 != singleton(esk2_0)
| ~ subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0)) )
& ( subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0))
| esk1_0 = empty_set
| esk1_0 = singleton(esk2_0) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( X1 = singleton(X2)
| X1 = empty_set
| ~ subset(X1,singleton(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( esk1_0 = singleton(esk2_0)
| esk1_0 = empty_set
| subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X3] : subset(X3,X3),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0))
| esk1_0 != singleton(esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( singleton(esk2_0) = esk1_0
| empty_set = esk1_0 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
subset(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_13,lemma,
! [X2] : subset(empty_set,X2),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[t2_xboole_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0))
| esk1_0 != empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
empty_set = esk1_0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,lemma,
subset(empty_set,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ subset(esk1_0,singleton(esk2_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,lemma,
subset(esk1_0,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : SEU160+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 02:18:10 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.25/1.43 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.43 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.25/1.43 # Preprocessing time : 0.020 s
% 0.25/1.43
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof found!
% 0.25/1.43 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/1.43 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object total steps : 20
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object clause steps : 11
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object conjectures : 10
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object clause conjectures : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.25/1.43 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.43 # Parsed axioms : 90
% 0.25/1.43 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 38
% 0.25/1.43 # Initial clauses : 89
% 0.25/1.43 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Initial clauses in saturation : 88
% 0.25/1.43 # Processed clauses : 97
% 0.25/1.43 # ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.25/1.43 # ...subsumed : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # ...remaining for further processing : 88
% 0.25/1.43 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 20
% 0.25/1.43 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Backward-rewritten : 19
% 0.25/1.43 # Generated clauses : 458
% 0.25/1.43 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 362
% 0.25/1.43 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Paramodulations : 414
% 0.25/1.43 # Factorizations : 14
% 0.25/1.43 # Equation resolutions : 30
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of processed clauses : 65
% 0.25/1.43 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.25/1.43 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/1.43 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/1.43 # Non-unit-clauses : 53
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 240
% 0.25/1.43 # ...number of literals in the above : 629
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Current number of archived clauses : 21
% 0.25/1.43 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 487
% 0.25/1.43 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 356
% 0.25/1.43 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.25/1.43 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13
% 0.25/1.43 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # BW rewrite match attempts : 32
% 0.25/1.43 # BW rewrite match successes : 12
% 0.25/1.43 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.43 # Termbank termtop insertions : 8561
% 0.25/1.43
% 0.25/1.43 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.43 # User time : 0.027 s
% 0.25/1.43 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/1.43 # Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.25/1.43 # Maximum resident set size: 3420 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------