%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO036-3 : 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 : n003.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 12:26:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.11s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 13 unt; 3 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 21 ( 9 equ; 9 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 : 4 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(lower_dimension2,axiom,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO002-0.ax',lower_dimension2) ).
cnf(lower_dimension1,axiom,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO002-0.ax',lower_dimension1) ).
cnf(prove_axioms_points_are_distinct,negated_conjecture,
( lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_3
| lower_dimension_point_2 = lower_dimension_point_3
| lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_axioms_points_are_distinct) ).
cnf(t3,axiom,
between(X1,X2,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t3) ).
cnf(lower_dimension3,axiom,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO002-0.ax',lower_dimension3) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[lower_dimension2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[lower_dimension1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_3
| lower_dimension_point_2 = lower_dimension_point_3
| lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_2 ),
prove_axioms_points_are_distinct ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
between(X1,X2,X2),
t3 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[lower_dimension3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2,lower_dimension_point_3),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( lower_dimension_point_3 = lower_dimension_point_2
| lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_2 ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
~ between(lower_dimension_point_3,lower_dimension_point_1,lower_dimension_point_2),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
lower_dimension_point_1 = lower_dimension_point_2,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO036-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n003.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
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:33:29 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41 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
% 0.11/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % new_bool_1 with pid 1600917 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.43 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43 % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1600923 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.43 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43 % partial match(2): FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.43
% 0.11/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.11/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 58
% 0.11/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 22
% 0.11/0.43 % Initial clauses : 36
% 0.11/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 35
% 0.11/0.43 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.11/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.11/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.11/0.43 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.11/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.11/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.11/0.43 % Factorizations : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 9
% 0.11/0.43 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.11/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.11/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 0.11/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 89
% 0.11/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.11/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.11/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.11/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.11/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 0.11/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.11/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1146
% 0.11/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 189
% 0.11/0.43
% 0.11/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.43 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.43 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.43 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.11/0.43
% 0.11/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.43 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.11/0.43 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.43 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.11/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------