TSTP Solution File: SEU264+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU264+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n019.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 09:18:24 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 1.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 54 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 48 ( 19 ~; 16 |; 5 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 48 ( 4 sgn 31 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t16_relset_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X1)
=> ( subset(X1,X2)
=> relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t16_relset_1) ).
fof(t1_xboole_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subset(X1,X2)
& subset(X2,X3) )
=> subset(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t1_xboole_1) ).
fof(t12_relset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( relation_of2_as_subset(X3,X1,X2)
=> ( subset(relation_dom(X3),X1)
& subset(relation_rng(X3),X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t12_relset_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(t14_relset_1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X1)
=> ( subset(relation_rng(X4),X2)
=> relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t14_relset_1) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3,X4] :
( relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X1)
=> ( subset(X1,X2)
=> relation_of2_as_subset(X4,X3,X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t16_relset_1]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ subset(X4,X5)
| ~ subset(X5,X6)
| subset(X4,X6) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t1_xboole_1])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,esk6_0,esk4_0)
& subset(esk4_0,esk5_0)
& ~ relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,esk6_0,esk5_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( subset(X1,X2)
| ~ subset(X3,X2)
| ~ subset(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk4_0,esk5_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ( subset(relation_dom(X6),X4)
| ~ relation_of2_as_subset(X6,X4,X5) )
& ( subset(relation_rng(X6),X5)
| ~ relation_of2_as_subset(X6,X4,X5) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t12_relset_1])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( subset(X1,esk5_0)
| ~ subset(X1,esk4_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( subset(relation_rng(X1),X3)
| ~ relation_of2_as_subset(X1,X2,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,esk6_0,esk4_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( subset(X1,esk5_0)
| ~ subset(X2,esk4_0)
| ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
subset(relation_rng(esk7_0),esk4_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
fof(c_0_16,plain,
! [X3] : subset(X3,X3),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity_r1_tarski])]) ).
fof(c_0_17,plain,
! [X5,X6,X7,X8] :
( ~ relation_of2_as_subset(X8,X7,X5)
| ~ subset(relation_rng(X8),X6)
| relation_of2_as_subset(X8,X7,X6) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[t14_relset_1])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( subset(X1,esk5_0)
| ~ subset(X1,relation_rng(esk7_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
subset(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( relation_of2_as_subset(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ subset(relation_rng(X1),X3)
| ~ relation_of2_as_subset(X1,X2,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
subset(relation_rng(esk7_0),esk5_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,X1,esk5_0)
| ~ relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
~ relation_of2_as_subset(esk7_0,esk6_0,esk5_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_13]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : SEU264+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 16:59:24 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.25/1.42 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.42 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.25/1.42 # Preprocessing time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/1.42
% 0.25/1.42 # Failure: Out of unprocessed clauses!
% 0.25/1.42 # OLD status GaveUp
% 0.25/1.42 # Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 14
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses : 6
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.25/1.42 # Processed clauses : 9
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 8
% 0.25/1.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Generated clauses : 4
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 3
% 0.25/1.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Paramodulations : 4
% 0.25/1.42 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.25/1.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.25/1.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 410
% 0.25/1.42
% 0.25/1.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.42 # User time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/1.42 # System time : 0.000 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Maximum resident set size: 2780 pages
% 0.25/1.42 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_f171197f65f27d1ba69648a20c844832c84a5dd7 for 23 seconds:
% 0.25/1.42 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/1.42
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof found!
% 0.25/1.42 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/1.42 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object total steps : 25
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object clause steps : 14
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object formula steps : 11
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object conjectures : 13
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object clause conjectures : 10
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object initial clauses used : 7
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object initial formulas used : 5
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object generating inferences : 7
% 0.25/1.42 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.25/1.42 # Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses : 23
% 0.25/1.42 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.25/1.42 # Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.25/1.42 # Processed clauses : 34
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # ...subsumed : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # ...remaining for further processing : 33
% 0.25/1.42 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Generated clauses : 40
% 0.25/1.42 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 33
% 0.25/1.42 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Paramodulations : 40
% 0.25/1.42 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of processed clauses : 33
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.25/1.42 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 16
% 0.25/1.42 # ...number of literals in the above : 28
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 32
% 0.25/1.42 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 28
% 0.25/1.42 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.25/1.42 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.25/1.42 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/1.42 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1350
% 0.25/1.42
% 0.25/1.42 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/1.42 # User time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/1.42 # System time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.25/1.42 # Maximum resident set size: 2784 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------