%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : SET010+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0. % 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 : n025.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 00:56:06 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 5.95s 4.81s % Output : CNFRefutation 5.95s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.11 % Problem : SET010+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0. % 0.11/0.12 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n025.cluster.edu % 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jul 10 17:11:31 EDT 2022 % 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.11/0.36 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.11/0.36 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y % 0.11/0.36 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred. % 0.11/0.36 # % 0.11/0.36 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.11/0.36 # Number of axioms: 24 Number of unprocessed: 22 % 0.11/0.36 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.11/0.36 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.11/0.36 # Hello from C++ % 0.11/0.39 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.11/0.39 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.11/0.39 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.11/0.39 # 22 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.11/0.39 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures. % 0.11/0.39 # There are 1 start rule candidates: % 0.11/0.39 # Found 5 unit axioms. % 0.11/0.39 # 1 start rule tableaux created. % 0.11/0.39 # 17 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.11/0.39 # 5 unit axiom clauses % 0.11/0.39 % 0.11/0.39 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.11/0.39 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1 % 4.26/4.51 # Returning from population with 10 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 4.26/4.51 # We now have 10 tableaux to operate on % 5.95/4.81 # There were 16 total branch saturation attempts. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 1 of these attempts blocked. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 7 free duplicated saturations. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 10 total successful branch saturations. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 1 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 5.95/4.81 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 5.95/4.81 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 5.95/4.81 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 5.95/4.81 # Begin clausification derivation % 5.95/4.81 % 5.95/4.81 # End clausification derivation % 5.95/4.81 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_21, plain, (subset(X1,X1))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_11, plain, (subset(intersection(X1,X2),X1))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_16, plain, (union(X1,X2)=union(X2,X1))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0))!=difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (member(X1,union(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (subset(difference(X1,X2),difference(X1,X3))|~subset(X3,X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_22, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,X2)|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,union(X2,X3)))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_10, plain, (subset(union(X1,X2),X3)|~subset(X2,X3)|~subset(X1,X3))). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_23, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 5.95/4.81 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 5.95/4.81 # Begin printing tableau % 5.95/4.81 # Found 9 steps % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_26, negated_conjecture, (union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0))!=difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))), inference(start_rule)). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_29, plain, (union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0))!=difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_23])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_70, plain, (~member(esk2_2(union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_20])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_71, plain, (~member(esk2_2(union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))),union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_71, ...])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_436932, plain, (~subset(difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_12])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_436933, plain, (~member(esk2_2(union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_22])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_729985, plain, (union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0))=difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_26])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_729949, plain, (~subset(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_729949, ...])). % 5.95/4.81 cnf(i_0_729986, plain, (member(esk2_2(union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)),difference(esk3_0,intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0))),union(difference(esk3_0,esk4_0),difference(esk3_0,esk5_0)))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_729986, ...])). % 5.95/4.81 # End printing tableau % 5.95/4.81 # SZS output end % 5.95/4.81 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 6.62/4.83 # Child (6299) has found a proof. % 6.62/4.83 % 6.62/4.83 # Proof search is over... % 6.62/4.83 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------