↑ 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  : GEO176+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 : n004.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 12:29:29 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.24s 5.61s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    6
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   13 (   5 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   38 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   37 (  12   ~;  13   |;   8   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   4  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   10 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    4 (   3 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   20 (   0 sgn  14   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
      ( ( ( apart_point_and_line(X1,X5)
          | apart_point_and_line(X1,X4) )
        & convergent_lines(X4,X5)
        & distinct_points(X1,X2) )
     => distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X4,X5)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).

fof(con2,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2,X3] :
      ( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
     => ( ( apart_point_and_line(X3,X2)
          | apart_point_and_line(X3,X1) )
       => distinct_points(X3,intersection_point(X1,X2)) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',con2) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
        ( ( ( apart_point_and_line(X1,X5)
            | apart_point_and_line(X1,X4) )
          & convergent_lines(X4,X5)
          & distinct_points(X1,X2) )
       => distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X4,X5)) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ distinct_points(esk1_0,intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0))
    & ( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk4_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_2])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X21,X22,X23] :
      ( ( ~ convergent_lines(X21,X22)
        | distinct_points(X23,intersection_point(X21,X22))
        | ~ apart_point_and_line(X23,X22) )
      & ( ~ convergent_lines(X21,X22)
        | distinct_points(X23,intersection_point(X21,X22))
        | ~ apart_point_and_line(X23,X21) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[con2])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    ~ distinct_points(esk1_0,intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X3,X2)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
    | distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X3,X2)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    convergent_lines(esk3_0,esk4_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    ( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk4_0)
    | apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk4_0),
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X2,X3)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
    | distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X2,X3)) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
    apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_7])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : GEO176+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/5.46  % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.20/5.46  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/5.46  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/5.46  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/5.46  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/5.46  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/5.47  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.20/5.47  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 12:57:24 UTC 2026
% 0.20/5.47  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/5.47  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/5.54  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/5.54  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
% 0.24/5.61  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/5.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % new_bool_3 with pid 828290 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/5.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.61  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.61  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.61  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % SubtermCWHack with pid 828294 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/5.61  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.61  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.61  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.61  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.61  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.61  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.61  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.24/5.61  
% 0.24/5.61  % Proof found!
% 0.24/5.61  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/5.61  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/5.61  % Parsed axioms                        : 13
% 0.24/5.61  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 1
% 0.24/5.61  % Initial clauses                      : 16
% 0.24/5.61  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 16
% 0.24/5.61  % Processed clauses                    : 33
% 0.24/5.61  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.24/5.61  % ...remaining for further processing  : 30
% 0.24/5.61  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Backward-rewritten                   : 2
% 0.24/5.61  % Generated clauses                    : 47
% 0.24/5.61  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 36
% 0.24/5.61  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Paramodulations                      : 44
% 0.24/5.61  % Factorizations                       : 2
% 0.24/5.61  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Total rewrite steps                  : 14
% 0.24/5.61  % ...of those cached                   : 10
% 0.24/5.61  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.24/5.61  % Current number of processed clauses  : 27
% 0.24/5.61  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 5
% 0.24/5.61  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/5.61  %    Negative unit clauses             : 5
% 0.24/5.61  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 17
% 0.24/5.61  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 19
% 0.24/5.61  % ...number of literals in the above   : 64
% 0.24/5.61  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.24/5.61  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 18
% 0.24/5.61  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 15
% 0.24/5.61  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 2
% 0.24/5.61  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.24/5.61  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.24/5.61  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.24/5.61  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.24/5.61  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1551
% 0.24/5.61  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 219
% 0.24/5.61  
% 0.24/5.61  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.61  % User time                : 0.011 s
% 0.24/5.61  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.24/5.61  % Total time               : 0.012 s
% 0.24/5.61  % Maximum resident set size: 3596 pages
% 0.24/5.61  
% 0.24/5.61  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.61  % User time                : 0.014 s
% 0.24/5.61  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.24/5.61  % Total time               : 0.021 s
% 0.24/5.61  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/5.61  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------