%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO221+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 : n019.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 12:27:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.10s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 40 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 40 ( 20 ~; 15 |; 1 &)
% ( 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,X10,X6] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X10,orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9))
=> ~ distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9),orthogonal_through_point(X6,X10)) ),
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,X10,X6] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X10,orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9))
=> ~ distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9),orthogonal_through_point(X6,X10)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X9,X10,X6] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X10,orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9))
=> ~ distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X6,X9),orthogonal_through_point(X6,X10)) ),
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,
! [X50,X51,X52,X53] :
( unorthogonal_lines(X52,X53)
| unorthogonal_lines(X51,X53)
| apart_point_and_line(X50,X52)
| apart_point_and_line(X50,X51)
| ~ distinct_lines(X51,X52) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ouo1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk2_0))
& ~ apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_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,
! [X30,X31] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(X31,X30),X31),
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(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X32,X33] : ~ apart_point_and_line(X32,orthogonal_through_point(X33,X32)),
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,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0))
| apart_point_and_line(X2,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk2_0))
| unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0),X1)
| unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk2_0),X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
~ apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(X2,X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,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_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,orthogonal_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GEO221+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 13:45:34 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.40 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
% 0.10/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % new_bool_1 with pid 326382 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 326388 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses : 21
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 21
% 0.10/0.44 % Processed clauses : 474
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % ...subsumed : 344
% 0.10/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 130
% 0.10/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Generated clauses : 1582
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1392
% 0.10/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Paramodulations : 1258
% 0.10/0.44 % Factorizations : 324
% 0.10/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 187
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of those cached : 122
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 124
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 112
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 934
% 0.10/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 5197
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.10/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6429
% 0.10/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3667
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 349
% 0.10/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% 0.10/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 12
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 18500
% 0.10/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 246
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3608 pages
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.030 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.10/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------