%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO045-3 : 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 : n008.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 12:27:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 14 unt; 3 nHn; 21 RR)
% Number of literals : 34 ( 6 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(t1,axiom,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t1) ).
cnf(b6,axiom,
( ~ between(X2,X3,X4)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3
| between(X1,X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b6) ).
cnf(v_between_u_and_w,hypothesis,
between(u,v,w),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v_between_u_and_w) ).
cnf(v_not_w,hypothesis,
v != w,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v_not_w) ).
cnf(w_between_v_and_x,hypothesis,
between(v,w,x),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',w_between_v_and_x) ).
cnf(prove_v_between_u_and_x,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_v_between_u_and_x) ).
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(X2,X3,X4)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3
| between(X1,X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[b6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
between(u,v,w),
v_between_u_and_w ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
v != w,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[v_not_w]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ between(X2,X3,X4)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| X2 = X3
| between(X1,X3,X4) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
between(w,v,u),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
v != w,
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
between(v,w,x),
w_between_v_and_x ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
( ~ between(X1,w,v)
| between(X1,v,u) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
between(x,w,v),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_v_between_u_and_x]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
between(x,v,u),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
c_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GEO045-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:38:53 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.34 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.39 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
% 0.13/0.41 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % sh5l with pid 2672194 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2672199 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.41 % Parsed axioms : 58
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 10
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses : 48
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses in saturation : 47
% 0.13/0.41 % Processed clauses : 90
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of these trivial : 8
% 0.13/0.41 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.13/0.41 % ...remaining for further processing : 75
% 0.13/0.41 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.13/0.41 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Generated clauses : 291
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 94
% 0.13/0.41 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Paramodulations : 287
% 0.13/0.41 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.13/0.41 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Total rewrite steps : 203
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of those cached : 160
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of processed clauses : 72
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 34
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.13/0.41 % Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 49
% 0.13/0.41 % ...number of literals in the above : 133
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 311
% 0.13/0.41 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 276
% 0.13/0.41 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.13/0.41 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.13/0.41 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match attempts : 147
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2899
% 0.13/0.41 % Search garbage collected termcells : 152
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.41 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------