%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : SEU134+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n027.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 09:17:02 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 10 ~; 8 |; 2 &)
% ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 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; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 14 ( 2 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(t37_xboole_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set
<=> subset(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',t37_xboole_1) ).
fof(l32_xboole_1,lemma,
! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set
<=> subset(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',l32_xboole_1) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set
<=> subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[t37_xboole_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,lemma,
! [X3,X4,X3,X4] :
( ( set_difference(X3,X4) != empty_set
| subset(X3,X4) )
& ( ~ subset(X3,X4)
| set_difference(X3,X4) = empty_set ) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[l32_xboole_1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ( set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0) != empty_set
| ~ subset(esk1_0,esk2_0) )
& ( set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0) = empty_set
| subset(esk1_0,esk2_0) ) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,lemma,
( subset(X1,X2)
| set_difference(X1,X2) != empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( subset(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0) = empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subset(esk1_0,esk2_0)
| set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0) != empty_set ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
subset(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
set_difference(esk1_0,esk2_0) != empty_set,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,lemma,
( set_difference(X1,X2) = empty_set
| ~ subset(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,lemma,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : SEU134+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sun Jun 19 07:52:23 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.23/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.23/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 12
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 7
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 7
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.23/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.23/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 47
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses : 62
% 0.23/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 62
% 0.23/1.40 # Processed clauses : 64
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 64
% 0.23/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 20
% 0.23/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Generated clauses : 243
% 0.23/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 160
% 0.23/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Paramodulations : 200
% 0.23/1.40 # Factorizations : 14
% 0.23/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 29
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 60
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.23/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 42
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 153
% 0.23/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 408
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.23/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 464
% 0.23/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 308
% 0.23/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 75
% 0.23/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.23/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 13
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 4968
% 0.23/1.40
% 0.23/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/1.40 # User time : 0.018 s
% 0.23/1.40 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.23/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 3060 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------