↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO174+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n013.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 12:29:28 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.23s 0.59s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% 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/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',ceq2) ).

fof(apart1,axiom,
    ! [X1] : ~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/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,
    ! [X33] : ~ distinct_points(X33,X33),
    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
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : GEO174+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/0.45  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 12:59:06 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.46  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/0.46  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.54  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
% 0.23/0.59  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % new_bool_1 with pid 2755737 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.23/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.59  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.59  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.59  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % SubtermCWHack with pid 2755739 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.59  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.59  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.59  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.59  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.59  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.59  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.59  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.59  
% 0.23/0.59  % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.59  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.59  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.59  % Parsed axioms                        : 13
% 0.23/0.59  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 1
% 0.23/0.59  % Initial clauses                      : 16
% 0.23/0.59  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 16
% 0.23/0.59  % Processed clauses                    : 40
% 0.23/0.59  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % ...subsumed                          : 7
% 0.23/0.59  % ...remaining for further processing  : 33
% 0.23/0.59  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Backward-rewritten                   : 4
% 0.23/0.59  % Generated clauses                    : 58
% 0.23/0.59  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 45
% 0.23/0.59  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Paramodulations                      : 54
% 0.23/0.59  % Factorizations                       : 4
% 0.23/0.59  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Total rewrite steps                  : 18
% 0.23/0.59  % ...of those cached                   : 13
% 0.23/0.59  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.23/0.59  % Current number of processed clauses  : 29
% 0.23/0.59  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 7
% 0.23/0.59  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.59  %    Negative unit clauses             : 4
% 0.23/0.59  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 18
% 0.23/0.59  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 19
% 0.23/0.59  % ...number of literals in the above   : 68
% 0.23/0.59  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Current number of archived clauses   : 4
% 0.23/0.59  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 32
% 0.23/0.59  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 28
% 0.23/0.59  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 7
% 0.23/0.59  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.23/0.59  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.23/0.59  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.23/0.59  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.23/0.59  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1642
% 0.23/0.59  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 215
% 0.23/0.59  
% 0.23/0.59  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.59  % User time                : 0.012 s
% 0.23/0.59  % System time              : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.59  % Total time               : 0.016 s
% 0.23/0.59  % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.23/0.59  
% 0.23/0.59  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.59  % User time                : 0.015 s
% 0.23/0.59  % System time              : 0.010 s
% 0.23/0.59  % Total time               : 0.025 s
% 0.23/0.59  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.59  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------