%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO225+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n007.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 12:27:53 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.11s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 2 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 54 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 56 ( 23 ~; 12 |; 11 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 sgn 23 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X9,X10] :
( ( distinct_points(X9,X10)
& point(X10)
& point(X9) )
=> ? [X1] :
( line(X1)
=> ( incident_point_and_line(X10,X1)
& incident_point_and_line(X9,X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(a4,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
<=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+6.ax',a4) ).
fof(ci2,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X2,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci2) ).
fof(ci1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X9,X10] :
( ( distinct_points(X9,X10)
& point(X10)
& point(X9) )
=> ? [X1] :
( line(X1)
=> ( incident_point_and_line(X10,X1)
& incident_point_and_line(X9,X1) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
<=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[a4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X13] :
( ( ~ incident_point_and_line(esk2_0,X13)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(esk1_0,X13) )
& line(X13)
& distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& point(esk2_0)
& point(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X14,X15] :
( ( incident_point_and_line(X14,X15)
| apart_point_and_line(X14,X15) )
& ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X14,X15)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(X14,X15) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X2,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci2]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_point_and_line(esk2_0,X1)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X1,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci1]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X30,X31] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X31,line_connecting(X30,X31))
| ~ distinct_points(X30,X31) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_point_and_line(esk1_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_14,plain,
! [X28,X29] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X28,line_connecting(X28,X29))
| ~ distinct_points(X28,X29) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_11])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X2,line_connecting(X1,X2))
| ~ distinct_points(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X1,X2))
| ~ distinct_points(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( ~ distinct_points(X1,esk2_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,line_connecting(X1,esk2_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO225+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.38 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 13:57:34 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 0.11/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % sh5l with pid 3013993 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.11/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.11/0.45 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.11/0.45 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3013999 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.11/0.45 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.11/0.45 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.11/0.45
% 0.11/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.45 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 36
% 0.11/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4
% 0.11/0.45 % Initial clauses : 43
% 0.11/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 43
% 0.11/0.45 % Processed clauses : 29
% 0.11/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.11/0.45 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.11/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 26
% 0.11/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.11/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.11/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.11/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.11/0.45 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 26
% 0.11/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.11/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.11/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.11/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 21
% 0.11/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 78
% 0.11/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11
% 0.11/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.11/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.11/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.11/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3073
% 0.11/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 493
% 0.11/0.45
% 0.11/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.45 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.45 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3680 pages
% 0.11/0.45
% 0.11/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.45 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.45 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.11/0.45 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.11/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.11/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------