%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO006-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 12:26:50 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 12 unt; 3 nHn; 21 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 9 equ; 17 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(t1,axiom,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t1) ).
cnf(b3,axiom,
( ~ between(X1,X3,X2)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b3) ).
cnf(c_between_a_and_d,hypothesis,
between(a,c,d),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_between_a_and_d) ).
cnf(a_not_c,hypothesis,
a != c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_not_c) ).
cnf(c_not_d,hypothesis,
c != d,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_not_d) ).
cnf(prove_not_between_others,negated_conjecture,
( between(a,d,c)
| between(c,a,d) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_not_between_others) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X3,X2)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[b3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
between(a,c,d),
c_between_a_and_d ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
a != c,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[a_not_c]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
c != d,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_not_d]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( between(a,d,c)
| between(c,a,d) ),
prove_not_between_others ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X3,X2)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3 ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
between(d,c,a),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
a != c,
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
c != d,
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( between(d,a,c)
| between(a,d,c) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
~ between(d,a,c),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
~ between(a,d,c),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_9]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GEO006-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:15:42 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 3236810 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3236815 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 54
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 25
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 29
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 29
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 29
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 27
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 37
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 11
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 34
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 27
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 20
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 39
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 74
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 74
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1087
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 181
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------