%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO117-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 12:27:13 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 5 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 3 equ; 19 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 45 ( 10 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(between_c_defn_1,axiom,
( X2 != X4
| ~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-1.ax',between_c_defn_1) ).
cnf(o3_24,axiom,
( ~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| between_c(ax2_sk4(X1,X4,X3,X2),X2,X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-2.ax',o3_24) ).
cnf(between_o_defn_6,axiom,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X4)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| between_o(X1,X4,X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-2.ax',between_o_defn_6) ).
cnf(theorem_4_4_133,negated_conjecture,
ordered_by(sk25,sk26,sk26),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',theorem_4_4_133) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( X2 != X4
| ~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[between_c_defn_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( X2 != X4
| ~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| between_c(ax2_sk4(X1,X4,X3,X2),X2,X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[o3_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X2),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| between_c(ax2_sk4(X1,X4,X3,X2),X2,X3,X4) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X4)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| between_o(X1,X4,X3,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[between_o_defn_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X4)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| between_o(X1,X4,X3,X2) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X2)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
ordered_by(sk25,sk26,sk26),
theorem_4_4_133 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO117-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n017.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 11:32:10 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.38 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
% 0.12/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % sh5l with pid 4005292 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4005299 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 97
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 22
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses : 75
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 66
% 0.12/0.42 % Processed clauses : 76
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.12/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 73
% 0.12/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 6
% 0.12/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Generated clauses : 65
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 49
% 0.12/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Paramodulations : 59
% 0.12/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.12/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 67
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 59
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 39
% 0.12/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 159
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 823
% 0.12/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 712
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.12/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 204
% 0.12/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3502
% 0.12/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 293
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3976 pages
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------