%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO047-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 0.09s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 18 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 0 equ; 13 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',t1) ).
cnf(b8,axiom,
( ~ between(X2,X4,X3)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X1,X4,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b8) ).
cnf(v_between_u_and_w,hypothesis,
between(u,v,w),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',v_between_u_and_w) ).
cnf(w_between_u_and_x,hypothesis,
between(u,w,x),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',w_between_u_and_x) ).
cnf(prove_v_between_u_and_x,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_v_between_u_and_x) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[t1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ between(X2,X4,X3)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X1,X4,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[b8]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X3,X2,X1) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
between(u,v,w),
v_between_u_and_w ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ between(X2,X4,X3)
| ~ between(X1,X2,X3)
| between(X1,X4,X3) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
between(w,v,u),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
between(u,w,x),
w_between_u_and_x ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
( ~ between(X1,w,u)
| between(X1,v,u) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
between(x,w,u),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_v_between_u_and_x]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
between(x,v,u),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ between(u,v,x),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO047-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.37 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 08:39:37 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.41 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.09/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % new_bool_1 with pid 1396727 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.43 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % partial match(1): FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1396730 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.43 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % partial match(1): FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.09/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 59
% 0.09/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 42
% 0.09/0.43 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.09/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.09/0.43 % Processed clauses : 45
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 41
% 0.09/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Generated clauses : 73
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 43
% 0.09/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Paramodulations : 72
% 0.09/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 27
% 0.09/0.43 % ...of those cached : 13
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.09/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.09/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.09/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 30
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.09/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 28
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 157
% 0.09/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 145
% 0.09/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.09/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.09/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1430
% 0.09/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 232
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.43 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.43 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.09/0.43
% 0.09/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.43 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.43 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.09/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------