%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO226+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 : n014.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 0.35s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.35s
% 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,
! [X6,X7] :
( ( convergent_lines(X6,X7)
& line(X7)
& line(X6) )
=> ? [X1] :
( point(X1)
=> ( incident_point_and_line(X1,X7)
& incident_point_and_line(X1,X6) ) ) ),
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(ci3,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci3) ).
fof(ci4,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci4) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X6,X7] :
( ( convergent_lines(X6,X7)
& line(X7)
& line(X6) )
=> ? [X1] :
( point(X1)
=> ( incident_point_and_line(X1,X7)
& incident_point_and_line(X1,X6) ) ) ),
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,
! [X94] :
( ( ~ incident_point_and_line(X94,esk2_0)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(X94,esk1_0) )
& point(X94)
& convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& line(esk2_0)
& line(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,
! [X88,X89] :
( ( incident_point_and_line(X88,X89)
| apart_point_and_line(X88,X89) )
& ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X88,X89)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(X88,X89) ) ),
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] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0) ),
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] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci4]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X27,X28] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X27,X28),X27)
| ~ convergent_lines(X27,X28) ),
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(X1,esk2_0)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_14,plain,
! [X29,X30] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X29,X30),X30)
| ~ convergent_lines(X29,X30) ),
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(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( ~ convergent_lines(esk1_0,X1)
| apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(esk1_0,X1),esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
convergent_lines(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
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GEO226+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.40 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.40 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.40 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.40 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.40 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.40 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.40 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.40 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 13:59:50 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.51 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
% 0.35/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.35/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1757332 completed with status 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.35/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.35/0.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.35/0.57 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1757334 completed with status 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.35/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.35/0.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.35/0.57 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.35/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.35/0.57
% 0.35/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.35/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.35/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.35/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 36
% 0.35/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Initial clauses : 51
% 0.35/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.35/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 49
% 0.35/0.57 % Processed clauses : 38
% 0.35/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.35/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 37
% 0.35/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Generated clauses : 12
% 0.35/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.35/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Paramodulations : 12
% 0.35/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.35/0.57 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 37
% 0.35/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.35/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.35/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 25
% 0.35/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.35/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 65
% 0.35/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.35/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 49
% 0.35/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48
% 0.35/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.35/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.35/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.35/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3508
% 0.35/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 521
% 0.35/0.57
% 0.35/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/0.57 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.35/0.57 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.35/0.57 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.35/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3680 pages
% 0.35/0.57
% 0.35/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/0.57 % User time : 0.029 s
% 0.35/0.57 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.35/0.57 % Total time : 0.044 s
% 0.35/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.35/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------