%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO174+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 12:27:33 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 58 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 52 ( 17 ~; 21 |; 9 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
( ( ( apart_point_and_line(X2,X4)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X4) )
& convergent_lines(X4,X5)
& distinct_points(X1,X2) )
=> distinct_lines(X4,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(ceq2,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
=> ( apart_point_and_line(X1,X3)
| distinct_lines(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',ceq2) ).
fof(apart1,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',apart1) ).
fof(con1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
=> ( apart_point_and_line(X3,line_connecting(X1,X2))
=> ( distinct_points(X3,X2)
& distinct_points(X3,X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',con1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
( ( ( apart_point_and_line(X2,X4)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X4) )
& convergent_lines(X4,X5)
& distinct_points(X1,X2) )
=> distinct_lines(X4,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X18,X19,X20] :
( apart_point_and_line(X18,X20)
| distinct_lines(X19,X20)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X18,X19) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ceq2])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ distinct_lines(esk3_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0))
& ( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0) )
& convergent_lines(esk3_0,esk4_0)
& distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X3)
| distinct_lines(X2,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X1] : ~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[apart1]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X23,X24,X25] :
( ( ~ distinct_points(X23,X24)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X25,line_connecting(X23,X24))
| distinct_points(X25,X24) )
& ( ~ distinct_points(X23,X24)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X25,line_connecting(X23,X24))
| distinct_points(X25,X23) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[con1])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ distinct_lines(esk3_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( distinct_lines(esk3_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X36] : ~ distinct_points(X36,X36),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ distinct_points(X2,X3)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X2,X3))
| distinct_points(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
( distinct_lines(esk3_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ distinct_points(X3,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X3,X2))
| distinct_points(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_16])]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GEO174+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.42 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.42 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 12:59:12 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.53 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
% 0.27/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % sh5l with pid 3524922 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.27/0.58 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3524924 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.27/0.58 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses : 18
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 18
% 0.27/0.58 % Processed clauses : 62
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % ...subsumed : 15
% 0.27/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 47
% 0.27/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.27/0.58 % Generated clauses : 121
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 89
% 0.27/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Paramodulations : 101
% 0.27/0.58 % Factorizations : 20
% 0.27/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 37
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of those cached : 32
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 43
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 31
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 43
% 0.27/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 158
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.27/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 113
% 0.27/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 91
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 14
% 0.27/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.27/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2272
% 0.27/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 236
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.27/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------