%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : GEO210+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n009.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Sat Jul 16 03:44:27 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 6.57s 2.19s
% Output : CNFRefutation 6.57s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 24 ( 14 unt; 6 nHn; 18 RR)
% Number of literals : 42 ( 0 equ; 18 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 6 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_26,negated_conjecture,
~ equal_lines(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_26) ).
cnf(i_0_14,plain,
( distinct_lines(X1,X2)
| equal_lines(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_14) ).
cnf(i_0_47,plain,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X3)
| unorthogonal_lines(X2,X4)
| unorthogonal_lines(X3,X4)
| ~ distinct_lines(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_47) ).
cnf(i_0_4,plain,
( ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_4) ).
cnf(i_0_28,negated_conjecture,
incident_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk2_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_28) ).
cnf(i_0_45,plain,
~ apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_45) ).
cnf(i_0_6,plain,
( ~ orthogonal_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_6) ).
cnf(i_0_27,negated_conjecture,
orthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk3_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_27) ).
cnf(i_0_44,plain,
~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X1,X2),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-4hrlcgs_/input.p',i_0_44) ).
cnf(c_0_57,negated_conjecture,
~ equal_lines(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
i_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_58,plain,
( distinct_lines(X1,X2)
| equal_lines(X1,X2) ),
i_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_59,plain,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X3)
| unorthogonal_lines(X2,X4)
| unorthogonal_lines(X3,X4)
| ~ distinct_lines(X3,X2) ),
i_0_47 ).
cnf(c_0_60,negated_conjecture,
distinct_lines(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_57,c_0_58]) ).
cnf(c_0_61,plain,
( ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
i_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_62,negated_conjecture,
incident_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk2_0),
i_0_28 ).
cnf(c_0_63,plain,
~ apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(X2,X1)),
i_0_45 ).
cnf(c_0_64,plain,
( unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),X1)
| unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(X2,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0))
| apart_point_and_line(X2,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_59,c_0_60]) ).
cnf(c_0_65,negated_conjecture,
~ apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_61,c_0_62]) ).
cnf(c_0_66,plain,
( ~ orthogonal_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X1,X2) ),
i_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_67,negated_conjecture,
orthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk3_0),
i_0_27 ).
cnf(c_0_68,plain,
~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X1,X2),X1),
i_0_44 ).
cnf(c_0_69,plain,
( unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),X1)
| unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,X1) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_63,c_0_64]),c_0_65]) ).
cnf(c_0_70,negated_conjecture,
~ unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_66,c_0_67]) ).
cnf(c_0_71,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_68,c_0_69]),c_0_70]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11 % Problem : GEO210+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.03/0.11 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.10/0.31 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.31 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.31 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.31 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.10/0.31 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.10/0.31 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.31 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.10/0.31 % DateTime : Fri Jun 17 18:05:54 EDT 2022
% 0.10/0.32 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.16/0.43 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.16/0.43 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.16/0.43 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.16/0.43 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 6.57/2.19 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN:
% 6.57/2.19 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 6.57/2.19 # Preprocessing time : 0.012 s
% 6.57/2.19
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof found!
% 6.57/2.19 # SZS status Theorem
% 6.57/2.19 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object total steps : 24
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object clause steps : 15
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object initial clauses used : 9
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object initial formulas used : 9
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 6.57/2.19 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 2
% 6.57/2.19 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 6.57/2.19 # Parsed axioms : 49
% 6.57/2.19 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Initial clauses : 49
% 6.57/2.19 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Initial clauses in saturation : 49
% 6.57/2.19 # Processed clauses : 100
% 6.57/2.19 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # ...subsumed : 30
% 6.57/2.19 # ...remaining for further processing : 70
% 6.57/2.19 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Backward-subsumed : 1
% 6.57/2.19 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Generated clauses : 162
% 6.57/2.19 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 143
% 6.57/2.19 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 8
% 6.57/2.19 # Paramodulations : 134
% 6.57/2.19 # Factorizations : 28
% 6.57/2.19 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Current number of processed clauses : 69
% 6.57/2.19 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 6.57/2.19 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Negative unit clauses : 10
% 6.57/2.19 # Non-unit-clauses : 48
% 6.57/2.19 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 76
% 6.57/2.19 # ...number of literals in the above : 276
% 6.57/2.19 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 6.57/2.19 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 485
% 6.57/2.19 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 286
% 6.57/2.19 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 6.57/2.19 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 103
% 6.57/2.19 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 6.57/2.19 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Condensation successes : 0
% 6.57/2.19 # Termbank termtop insertions : 2772
% 6.57/2.19
% 6.57/2.19 # -------------------------------------------------
% 6.57/2.19 # User time : 0.008 s
% 6.57/2.19 # System time : 0.007 s
% 6.57/2.19 # Total time : 0.015 s
% 6.57/2.19 # ...preprocessing : 0.012 s
% 6.57/2.19 # ...main loop : 0.003 s
% 6.57/2.19 # Maximum resident set size: 7136 pages
% 6.57/2.19
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------