TSTP Solution File: SEU194+1 by Etableau---0.67
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Etableau---0.67
% Problem : SEU194+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 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 : n029.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 09:24:39 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 82.70s 10.84s
% Output : CNFRefutation 82.70s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11 % Problem : SEU194+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s
% 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Jun 20 10:41:00 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied
% 0.20/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y
% 0.20/0.36 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred.
% 0.20/0.36 #
% 0.20/0.36 # Number of axioms: 38 Number of unprocessed: 38
% 0.20/0.36 # Tableaux proof search.
% 0.20/0.36 # APR header successfully linked.
% 0.20/0.36 # Hello from C++
% 0.20/0.36 # The folding up rule is enabled...
% 0.20/0.36 # Local unification is enabled...
% 0.20/0.36 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels...
% 0.20/0.36 # 38 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification
% 0.20/0.36 # Creating start rules for all 2 conjectures.
% 0.20/0.36 # There are 2 start rule candidates:
% 0.20/0.36 # Found 15 unit axioms.
% 0.20/0.36 # Unsuccessfully attempted saturation on 1 start tableaux, moving on.
% 0.20/0.36 # 2 start rule tableaux created.
% 0.20/0.36 # 23 extension rule candidate clauses
% 0.20/0.36 # 15 unit axiom clauses
% 0.20/0.36
% 0.20/0.36 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process.
% 0.20/0.36 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 2
% 0.20/0.36 # Returning from population with 13 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux.
% 0.20/0.36 # We now have 13 tableaux to operate on
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 5 total branch saturation attempts.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 0 free duplicated saturations.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 2 total successful branch saturations.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch.
% 82.70/10.84 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch.
% 82.70/10.84 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 82.70/10.84 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 82.70/10.84 # Begin clausification derivation
% 82.70/10.84
% 82.70/10.84 # End clausification derivation
% 82.70/10.84 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (empty(empty_set))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (empty(empty_set))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_25, plain, (empty(esk3_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_26, plain, (empty(esk4_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (relation(empty_set))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (relation(esk3_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_27, plain, (relation(esk5_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_42, negated_conjecture, (relation(esk9_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_28, plain, (~empty(esk5_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (~empty(esk6_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_35, plain, (X1=empty_set|~empty(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (relation(X1)|~empty(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_31, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,empty_set)=empty_set)).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X1)=X1)).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_40, plain, (X1=X2|~empty(X2)|~empty(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (empty(relation_dom(X1))|~empty(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (relation(relation_dom(X1))|~empty(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_15, plain, (element(esk2_1(X1),X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (set_intersection2(X1,X2)=set_intersection2(X2,X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (empty(X1)|~relation(X1)|~empty(relation_dom(X1)))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_36, plain, (~empty(X2)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_30, plain, (element(X1,X2)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (relation(relation_dom_restriction(X1,X2))|~relation(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_32, plain, (empty(X2)|in(X1,X2)|~element(X1,X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (relation(set_intersection2(X1,X2))|~relation(X2)|~relation(X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (~in(X2,X1)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (in(X1,X2)|X3!=set_intersection2(X4,X2)|~in(X1,X3))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (in(X1,X2)|X3!=set_intersection2(X2,X4)|~in(X1,X3))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_41, negated_conjecture, (relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0))!=set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_33, plain, (X1=X2|in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X2)|in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (in(X1,X4)|X4!=set_intersection2(X2,X3)|~in(X1,X3)|~in(X1,X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_34, plain, (X1=X2|~in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X2)|~in(esk7_2(X1,X2),X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_37, plain, (in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2)))|~relation(X3)|~in(X1,X2)|~in(X1,relation_dom(X3)))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_39, plain, (in(X1,X2)|~relation(X3)|~in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X3,X2))))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_38, plain, (in(X1,relation_dom(X2))|~relation(X2)|~in(X1,relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(X2,X3))))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X2))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (X3=set_intersection2(X1,X2)|~in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X3)|~in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X2)|~in(esk1_3(X1,X2,X3),X1))).
% 82.70/10.84 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification!
% 82.70/10.84 # Begin printing tableau
% 82.70/10.84 # Found 6 steps
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_41, negated_conjecture, (relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0))!=set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)), inference(start_rule)).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_43, plain, (relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0))!=set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_34])).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_87, plain, (~in(esk7_2(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0)),set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)),set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_8])).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_492729, plain, (set_intersection2(set_intersection2(X13,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)),set_intersection2(X13,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)))!=set_intersection2(X13,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_23])).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_88, plain, (~in(esk7_2(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0)),set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)),relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_88, ...])).
% 82.70/10.84 cnf(i_0_492730, plain, (~in(esk7_2(relation_dom(relation_dom_restriction(esk9_0,esk8_0)),set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)),set_intersection2(set_intersection2(X13,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0)),set_intersection2(X13,set_intersection2(relation_dom(esk9_0),esk8_0))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_492730, ...])).
% 82.70/10.84 # End printing tableau
% 82.70/10.84 # SZS output end
% 82.70/10.84 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s"
% 83.19/10.85 # Child (12220) has found a proof.
% 83.19/10.85
% 83.19/10.85 # Proof search is over...
% 83.19/10.85 # Freeing feature tree
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------