%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : Etableau---0.67 % Problem : SET634+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 : n012.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 01:01:36 EDT 2022 % Result : Theorem 2.63s 2.89s % Output : CNFRefutation 2.63s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.10/0.13 % Problem : SET634+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.2.0. % 0.10/0.14 % Command : etableau --auto --tsmdo --quicksat=10000 --tableau=1 --tableau-saturation=1 -s -p --tableau-cores=8 --cpu-limit=%d %s % 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu % 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 600 % 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Jul 11 00:24:43 EDT 2022 % 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.14/0.38 # No SInE strategy applied % 0.14/0.38 # Auto-Mode selected heuristic G_E___300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y % 0.14/0.38 # and selection function SelectMaxLComplexAvoidPosPred. % 0.14/0.38 # % 0.14/0.38 # Presaturation interreduction done % 0.14/0.38 # Number of axioms: 19 Number of unprocessed: 17 % 0.14/0.38 # Tableaux proof search. % 0.14/0.38 # APR header successfully linked. % 0.14/0.38 # Hello from C++ % 0.20/0.42 # The folding up rule is enabled... % 0.20/0.42 # Local unification is enabled... % 0.20/0.42 # Any saturation attempts will use folding labels... % 0.20/0.42 # 17 beginning clauses after preprocessing and clausification % 0.20/0.42 # Creating start rules for all 1 conjectures. % 0.20/0.42 # There are 1 start rule candidates: % 0.20/0.42 # Found 3 unit axioms. % 0.20/0.42 # 1 start rule tableaux created. % 0.20/0.42 # 14 extension rule candidate clauses % 0.20/0.42 # 3 unit axiom clauses % 0.20/0.42 % 0.20/0.42 # Requested 8, 32 cores available to the main process. % 0.20/0.42 # There are not enough tableaux to fork, creating more from the initial 1 % 2.63/2.87 # Returning from population with 10 new_tableaux and 0 remaining starting tableaux. % 2.63/2.87 # We now have 10 tableaux to operate on % 2.63/2.89 # There were 11 total branch saturation attempts. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 5 free duplicated saturations. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 7 total successful branch saturations. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 2 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 2.63/2.89 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.63/2.89 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.63/2.89 # Begin clausification derivation % 2.63/2.89 % 2.63/2.89 # End clausification derivation % 2.63/2.89 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (subset(X1,X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 2.63/2.89 # Begin printing tableau % 2.63/2.89 # Found 8 steps % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(start_rule)). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_14])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_19])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_60, ...])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496090, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496089, plain, (~subset(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_20])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496102, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496103, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496103, ...])). % 2.63/2.89 # End printing tableau % 2.63/2.89 # SZS output end % 2.63/2.89 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 2.63/2.89 # There were 12 total branch saturation attempts. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 of these attempts blocked. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 deferred branch saturation attempts. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 5 free duplicated saturations. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 8 total successful branch saturations. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations in interreduction. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 0 successful branch saturations on the branch. % 2.63/2.89 # There were 3 successful branch saturations after the branch. % 2.63/2.89 # SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.63/2.89 # SZS output start for /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p % 2.63/2.89 # Begin clausification derivation % 2.63/2.89 % 2.63/2.89 # End clausification derivation % 2.63/2.89 # Begin listing active clauses obtained from FOF to CNF conversion % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_20, plain, (subset(X1,X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_12, plain, (intersection(X1,X2)=intersection(X2,X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_18, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_1, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_13, plain, (X1=X2|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1)|member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_4, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X3,X2)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_5, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,intersection(X2,X3)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_7, plain, (~member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_8, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~member(X1,difference(X2,X3)))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_17, plain, (subset(X1,X2)|~member(esk3_2(X1,X2),X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_6, plain, (member(X1,difference(X2,X3))|member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_3, plain, (member(X1,intersection(X2,X3))|~member(X1,X3)|~member(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_9, plain, (X1=X2|~subset(X2,X1)|~subset(X1,X2))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_19, plain, (member(X1,X2)|~subset(X3,X2)|~member(X1,X3))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_2, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_14, plain, (X1=X2|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X2)|~member(esk2_2(X1,X2),X1))). % 2.63/2.89 # End listing active clauses. There is an equivalent clause to each of these in the clausification! % 2.63/2.89 # Begin printing tableau % 2.63/2.89 # Found 9 steps % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_21, negated_conjecture, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(start_rule)). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_24, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)!=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_14])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_59, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_6])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_60, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_60, ...])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_375566, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_7])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_375568, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))), inference(extension_rule, [i_0_13])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496116, plain, (difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0)=intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))), inference(closure_rule, [i_0_21])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496109, plain, (~member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(X6,difference(intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0)))))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496109, ...])). % 2.63/2.89 cnf(i_0_496117, plain, (member(esk2_2(difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0),intersection(esk4_0,difference(esk5_0,esk6_0))),difference(intersection(esk4_0,esk5_0),esk6_0))), inference(etableau_closure_rule, [i_0_496117, ...])). % 2.63/2.89 # End printing tableau % 2.63/2.89 # SZS output end % 2.63/2.89 # Branches closed with saturation will be marked with an "s" % 2.71/2.90 # Child (13149) has found a proof. % 2.71/2.90 % 2.71/2.90 # Proof search is over... % 2.71/2.90 # Freeing feature tree %------------------------------------------------------------------------------