%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO124-1 : 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 : n020.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 12:29:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.09s 0.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 33 ( 11 unt; 5 nHn; 33 RR)
% Number of literals : 66 ( 12 equ; 37 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 72 ( 13 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(start_point_defn_8,axiom,
( ~ incident_o(X3,X2)
| ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| ordered_by(X2,X1,X3)
| X1 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-2.ax',start_point_defn_8) ).
cnf(corollary_4_10_1_134,negated_conjecture,
start_point(sk27,sk25),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_4_10_1_134) ).
cnf(o1_17,axiom,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| incident_o(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-2.ax',o1_17) ).
cnf(start_point_defn_7,axiom,
( ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| incident_o(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO004-2.ax',start_point_defn_7) ).
cnf(corollary_4_10_1_133,negated_conjecture,
start_point(sk26,sk25),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_4_10_1_133) ).
cnf(corollary_4_10_1_135,negated_conjecture,
sk26 != sk27,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',corollary_4_10_1_135) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( X2 != X4
| ~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[between_c_defn_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( X2 != X4
| ~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X4) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_11,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_12,plain,
~ between_c(X1,X2,X3,X2),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| between_c(ax2_sk4(X1,X4,X3,X2),X2,X3,X4) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_14,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_15,plain,
( ~ incident_o(X3,X2)
| ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| ordered_by(X2,X1,X3)
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[start_point_defn_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
~ between_o(X1,X2,X3,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X4)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| between_o(X1,X4,X3,X2) ),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ incident_o(X3,X2)
| ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| ordered_by(X2,X1,X3)
| X1 = X3 ),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
start_point(sk27,sk25),
corollary_4_10_1_134 ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| incident_o(X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[o1_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| incident_o(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[start_point_defn_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X3,X2)
| ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_o(X1,sk25)
| ordered_by(sk25,sk27,X1)
| sk27 = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( ~ ordered_by(X1,X2,X3)
| incident_o(X2,X1) ),
c_0_20 ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
start_point(sk26,sk25),
corollary_4_10_1_133 ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
( ~ start_point(X1,X2)
| incident_o(X1,X2) ),
c_0_21 ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
sk26 != sk27,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[corollary_4_10_1_135]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ordered_by(sk25,X1,sk27)
| sk27 = X1 ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]),c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_o(X1,sk25)
| ordered_by(sk25,sk26,X1)
| sk26 = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_25]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
incident_o(sk27,sk25),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,negated_conjecture,
sk26 != sk27,
c_0_27 ).
cnf(c_0_32,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_29]),c_0_30])]),c_0_31]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO124-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.37 % Computer : n020.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 12:00:18 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.42 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
% 0.09/0.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % sh5l with pid 446307 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.09/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.09/0.46 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.09/0.46 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 446313 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.09/0.46 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.09/0.46 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.46
% 0.09/0.46 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.09/0.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.46 % Parsed axioms : 99
% 0.09/0.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 24
% 0.09/0.46 % Initial clauses : 75
% 0.09/0.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 0.09/0.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 66
% 0.09/0.46 % Processed clauses : 80
% 0.09/0.46 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.09/0.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 76
% 0.09/0.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 6
% 0.09/0.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Generated clauses : 66
% 0.09/0.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 46
% 0.09/0.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 0.09/0.46 % Paramodulations : 60
% 0.09/0.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.09/0.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.09/0.46 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 70
% 0.09/0.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.09/0.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.09/0.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 59
% 0.09/0.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.09/0.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 138
% 0.09/0.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 810
% 0.09/0.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 630
% 0.09/0.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.09/0.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 190
% 0.09/0.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3523
% 0.09/0.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 297
% 0.09/0.46
% 0.09/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.46 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.46 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.46 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.09/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3720 pages
% 0.09/0.46
% 0.09/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.46 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.09/0.46 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.09/0.46 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.09/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.09/0.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------