%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO081-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 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 12:27:07 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 10.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 8 unt; 3 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 35 ( 0 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(part_of_defn_1,axiom,
( ~ incident_c(X3,X1)
| ~ part_of(X1,X2)
| incident_c(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-0.ax',part_of_defn_1) ).
cnf(part_of_defn_3,axiom,
( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
| part_of(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-0.ax',part_of_defn_3) ).
cnf(part_of_transitivity_68,negated_conjecture,
part_of(sk15,sk16),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',part_of_transitivity_68) ).
cnf(part_of_transitivity_67,negated_conjecture,
part_of(sk14,sk15),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',part_of_transitivity_67) ).
cnf(part_of_defn_2,axiom,
( part_of(X1,X2)
| incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-0.ax',part_of_defn_2) ).
cnf(part_of_transitivity_69,negated_conjecture,
~ part_of(sk14,sk16),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',part_of_transitivity_69) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ incident_c(X3,X1)
| ~ part_of(X1,X2)
| incident_c(X3,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[part_of_defn_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
| part_of(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[part_of_defn_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ incident_c(X3,X1)
| ~ part_of(X1,X2)
| incident_c(X3,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
part_of(sk15,sk16),
part_of_transitivity_68 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
part_of(sk14,sk15),
part_of_transitivity_67 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X2)
| part_of(X1,X2) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_c(X1,sk15)
| incident_c(X1,sk16) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_c(X1,sk14)
| incident_c(X1,sk15) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
( part_of(X1,X2)
| incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,X2),X1) ),
part_of_defn_2 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ part_of(sk14,sk16),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[part_of_transitivity_69]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_c(ax0_sk1(X1,sk16),sk15)
| part_of(X1,sk16) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( part_of(sk14,X1)
| incident_c(ax0_sk1(sk14,X1),sk15) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ part_of(sk14,sk16),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GEO081-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/10.49 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.20/10.49 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/10.49 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/10.49 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/10.49 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/10.49 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/10.49 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/10.49 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 10:09:40 UTC 2026
% 0.20/10.49 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/10.49 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/10.57 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/10.57 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
% 0.25/10.63 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/10.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1664386 completed with status 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.25/10.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/10.63 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/10.63 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/10.63 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting G-E--_208_B07----S_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 166s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 162s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 158s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1664391 completed with status 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/10.63 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/10.63 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/10.63 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/10.63 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/10.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.63 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/10.63
% 0.25/10.63 % Proof found!
% 0.25/10.63 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/10.63 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/10.63 % Parsed axioms : 51
% 0.25/10.63 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Initial clauses : 51
% 0.25/10.63 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.25/10.63 % Initial clauses in saturation : 46
% 0.25/10.63 % Processed clauses : 42
% 0.25/10.63 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.25/10.63 % ...remaining for further processing : 40
% 0.25/10.63 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Generated clauses : 31
% 0.25/10.63 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 22
% 0.25/10.63 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Paramodulations : 31
% 0.25/10.63 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.25/10.63 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/10.63 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.25/10.63 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.25/10.63 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/10.63 % Non-unit-clauses : 32
% 0.25/10.63 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 26
% 0.25/10.63 % ...number of literals in the above : 101
% 0.25/10.63 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 169
% 0.25/10.63 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 159
% 0.25/10.63 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.25/10.63 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.25/10.63 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.25/10.63 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/10.63 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1931
% 0.25/10.63 % Search garbage collected termcells : 128
% 0.25/10.63
% 0.25/10.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/10.63 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/10.63 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/10.63 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.25/10.63 % Maximum resident set size: 3680 pages
% 0.25/10.63
% 0.25/10.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/10.63 % User time : 0.029 s
% 0.25/10.63 % System time : 0.024 s
% 0.25/10.63 % Total time : 0.053 s
% 0.25/10.63 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/10.63 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------