%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.7
% Problem : GEO210+3 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Mon Jun 24 06:04:34 EDT 2024
% Result : Theorem 0.65s 0.84s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.65s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : GEO210+3 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.12/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Fri Jun 21 06:31:39 EDT 2024
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.59/0.62 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.64/0.84 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.64/0.84 % File :CSE---1.7
% 0.64/0.84 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.64/0.84 % Transform :cnf
% 0.64/0.84 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.64/0.84 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.64/0.84
% 0.64/0.84 % Result :Theorem 0.170000s
% 0.64/0.84 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.170000s
% 0.64/0.84 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.64/0.84 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.64/0.84 % File : GEO210+3 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.64/0.84 % Domain : Geometry (Constructive)
% 0.64/0.84 % Problem : Uniqueness of orthogonality
% 0.64/0.84 % Version : [vPl95] axioms.
% 0.64/0.84 % English : If the point A is incident with line L, and the line L is
% 0.64/0.84 % orthogonal to M, then L is equal to the orthogonal to M
% 0.64/0.84 % through A.
% 0.64/0.84
% 0.64/0.84 % Refs : [vPl95] von Plato (1995), The Axioms of Constructive Geometry
% 0.64/0.84 % : [ROK06] Raths et al. (2006), The ILTP Problem Library for Intu
% 0.64/0.84 % : [Rat07] Raths (2007), Email to Geoff Sutcliffe
% 0.64/0.84 % Source : [Rat07]
% 0.64/0.84 % Names : Theorem 8.1 [vPl95]
% 0.64/0.84
% 0.64/0.84 % Status : Theorem
% 0.64/0.84 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.25 v5.5.0, 0.08 v5.4.0, 0.09 v5.3.0, 0.13 v5.2.0, 0.14 v5.0.0, 0.05 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v4.0.0
% 0.64/0.84 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 36 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% 0.64/0.84 % Number of atoms : 96 ( 0 equ)
% 0.64/0.84 % Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% 0.64/0.84 % Number of connectives : 88 ( 28 ~; 19 |; 14 &)
% 0.64/0.84 % ( 5 <=>; 22 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.64/0.84 % Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% 0.64/0.84 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.64/0.84 % Number of predicates : 12 ( 12 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.64/0.84 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 0 con; 2-2 aty)
% 0.64/0.84 % Number of variables : 84 ( 84 !; 0 ?)
% 0.64/0.84 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.64/0.84
% 0.64/0.84 % Comments :
% 0.64/0.84 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+0.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+1.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+2.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+3.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+4.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+5.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 include('Axioms/GEO006+6.ax').
% 0.64/0.84 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.64/0.84 fof(con,conjecture,
% 0.64/0.84 ! [A,L,M] :
% 0.64/0.84 ( ( incident_point_and_line(A,L)
% 0.64/0.84 & orthogonal_lines(L,M) )
% 0.64/0.84 => equal_lines(L,orthogonal_through_point(M,A)) ) ).
% 0.64/0.84
% 0.64/0.84 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.84 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.84 % Proof found
% 0.65/0.84 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.65/0.84 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.65/0.84 %ClaNum:49(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.65/0.84 %VarNum:218(SingletonVarNum:98)
% 0.65/0.84 %MaxLitNum:6
% 0.65/0.85 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.65/0.85 %SharedTerms:7
% 0.65/0.85 %goalClause: 1 2 6
% 0.65/0.85 %singleGoalClaCount:3
% 0.65/0.85 [1]P1(a1,a2)
% 0.65/0.85 [2]P8(a2,a3)
% 0.65/0.85 [6]~P6(a2,f4(a3,a1))
% 0.65/0.85 [3]~P2(x31,x31)
% 0.65/0.85 [4]~P3(x41,x41)
% 0.65/0.85 [5]~P4(x51,x51)
% 0.65/0.85 [7]~P5(x71,f7(x72,x71))
% 0.65/0.85 [8]~P5(x81,f4(x82,x81))
% 0.65/0.85 [9]~P4(f7(x91,x92),x91)
% 0.65/0.85 [10]~P10(f4(x101,x102),x101)
% 0.65/0.85 [11]P7(x111,x112)+P2(x111,x112)
% 0.65/0.85 [12]P6(x121,x122)+P3(x121,x122)
% 0.65/0.85 [14]P10(x141,x142)+P4(x141,x142)
% 0.65/0.85 [15]P11(x151,x152)+P4(x151,x152)
% 0.65/0.85 [16]P1(x161,x162)+P5(x161,x162)
% 0.65/0.85 [17]P8(x171,x172)+P10(x171,x172)
% 0.65/0.85 [18]~P3(x181,x182)+P4(x181,x182)
% 0.65/0.85 [21]~P7(x211,x212)+~P2(x211,x212)
% 0.65/0.85 [22]~P6(x221,x222)+~P3(x221,x222)
% 0.65/0.85 [23]~P11(x231,x232)+~P4(x231,x232)
% 0.65/0.85 [24]~P1(x241,x242)+~P5(x241,x242)
% 0.65/0.85 [25]~P8(x251,x252)+~P10(x251,x252)
% 0.65/0.85 [45]~P2(x451,x452)+~P5(x452,f6(x451,x452))
% 0.65/0.85 [46]~P2(x461,x462)+~P5(x461,f6(x461,x462))
% 0.65/0.85 [47]~P4(x471,x472)+~P5(f5(x471,x472),x472)
% 0.65/0.85 [48]~P4(x481,x482)+~P5(f5(x481,x482),x481)
% 0.65/0.85 [19]~P12(x192)+~P9(x191)+P9(f7(x191,x192))
% 0.65/0.85 [20]~P12(x202)+~P9(x201)+P9(f4(x201,x202))
% 0.65/0.85 [26]~P2(x263,x261)+P2(x261,x262)+P2(x263,x262)
% 0.65/0.85 [27]~P5(x271,x273)+P2(x271,x272)+P5(x272,x273)
% 0.65/0.85 [28]~P3(x283,x281)+P3(x281,x282)+P3(x283,x282)
% 0.65/0.85 [29]~P4(x293,x291)+P3(x291,x292)+P4(x293,x292)
% 0.65/0.85 [30]~P5(x303,x301)+P3(x301,x302)+P5(x303,x302)
% 0.65/0.85 [31]~P4(x313,x311)+P4(x311,x312)+P4(x313,x312)
% 0.65/0.85 [32]~P4(x323,x322)+P10(x321,x322)+P10(x321,x323)
% 0.65/0.85 [34]~P9(x342)+~P9(x341)+~P4(x341,x342)+P12(f5(x341,x342))
% 0.65/0.85 [35]~P12(x352)+~P12(x351)+~P2(x351,x352)+P9(f6(x351,x352))
% 0.65/0.85 [37]~P4(x371,x373)+~P10(x371,x373)+P4(x371,x372)+P10(x373,x372)
% 0.65/0.85 [38]~P4(x382,x383)+~P10(x382,x383)+P4(x381,x382)+P4(x381,x383)
% 0.65/0.85 [39]~P4(x392,x393)+~P10(x392,x393)+P4(x391,x392)+P10(x391,x393)
% 0.65/0.85 [40]~P4(x403,x401)+~P10(x403,x401)+P4(x401,x402)+P10(x403,x402)
% 0.65/0.85 [41]~P4(x413,x412)+~P10(x413,x412)+P4(x411,x412)+P10(x411,x413)
% 0.65/0.85 [42]~P4(x421,x423)+~P10(x421,x423)+P10(x421,x422)+P10(x423,x422)
% 0.65/0.85 [44]P10(x443,x444)+~P3(x443,x442)+P5(x441,x442)+P5(x441,x443)+P10(x442,x444)
% 0.65/0.85 [49]P5(x494,x493)+~P2(x494,x491)+~P3(x493,x492)+P5(x491,x492)+P5(x491,x493)+P5(x494,x492)
% 0.65/0.85 %EqnAxiom
% 0.65/0.85
% 0.65/0.85 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.65/0.85 cnf(96,plain,
% 0.65/0.85 (~P5(a1,a2)),
% 0.65/0.85 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,24,27])).
% 0.65/0.85 cnf(97,plain,
% 0.65/0.85 (P10(a2,x971)+~P3(a2,f4(x971,a1))),
% 0.65/0.85 inference(scs_inference,[],[96,8,10,44])).
% 0.65/0.85 cnf(165,plain,
% 0.65/0.85 (~P3(a2,f4(a3,a1))),
% 0.65/0.85 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,97,25])).
% 0.65/0.85 cnf(166,plain,
% 0.65/0.85 ($false),
% 0.65/0.85 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,165,12]),
% 0.65/0.85 ['proof']).
% 0.65/0.85 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.65/0.85 % Total time :0.170000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------