%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO210+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 : 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 12:27:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 45 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 49 ( 25 ~; 15 |; 5 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 40 ( 2 sgn 29 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X9,X6,X7] :
( ( ~ unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X9,X6) )
=> ~ distinct_lines(X6,orthogonal_through_point(X7,X9)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(ooc1,axiom,
! [X9,X6] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9),X6),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ooc1) ).
fof(ouo1,axiom,
! [X9,X6,X7,X8] :
( distinct_lines(X6,X7)
=> ( unorthogonal_lines(X7,X8)
| unorthogonal_lines(X6,X8)
| apart_point_and_line(X9,X7)
| apart_point_and_line(X9,X6) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ouo1) ).
fof(ooc2,axiom,
! [X9,X6] : ~ apart_point_and_line(X9,orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ooc2) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X9,X6,X7] :
( ( ~ unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X9,X6) )
=> ~ distinct_lines(X6,orthogonal_through_point(X7,X9)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X9,X6,X7] :
( ( ~ unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X9,X6) )
=> ~ distinct_lines(X6,orthogonal_through_point(X7,X9)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X9,X6] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9),X6),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ooc1]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X56,X57,X58,X59] :
( unorthogonal_lines(X58,X59)
| unorthogonal_lines(X57,X59)
| apart_point_and_line(X56,X58)
| apart_point_and_line(X56,X57)
| ~ distinct_lines(X57,X58) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ouo1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( distinct_lines(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0))
& ~ unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk3_0)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(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_5])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X9,X6] : ~ apart_point_and_line(X9,orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ooc2]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X52,X53] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X53,X52),X53),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ distinct_lines(X1,X2)
| unorthogonal_lines(X2,X4)
| unorthogonal_lines(X1,X4)
| apart_point_and_line(X3,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
distinct_lines(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X54,X55] : ~ apart_point_and_line(X54,orthogonal_through_point(X55,X54)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X1,X2),X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(X2,esk2_0)
| apart_point_and_line(X2,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0))
| unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,X1)
| unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
~ apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(X2,X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GEO210+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 13:25:27 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.45 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
% 0.22/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3593224 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.22/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.49 % Search class: FGUNF-FFMF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3593232 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.22/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.49 % Search class: FGUNF-FFMF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.49 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.22/0.49
% 0.22/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.49 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.22/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Initial clauses : 28
% 0.22/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 28
% 0.22/0.49 % Processed clauses : 104
% 0.22/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % ...subsumed : 12
% 0.22/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 92
% 0.22/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.22/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Generated clauses : 237
% 0.22/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 211
% 0.22/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Paramodulations : 229
% 0.22/0.49 % Factorizations : 8
% 0.22/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 25
% 0.22/0.49 % ...of those cached : 20
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 63
% 0.22/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.22/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 0.22/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 48
% 0.22/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 156
% 0.22/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 737
% 0.22/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 29
% 0.22/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 283
% 0.22/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 174
% 0.22/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 13
% 0.22/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 29
% 0.22/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.22/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5385
% 0.22/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 287
% 0.22/0.49
% 0.22/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.49 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.22/0.49 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.49 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.22/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.22/0.49
% 0.22/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.49 % User time : 0.035 s
% 0.22/0.49 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.22/0.49 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.22/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------