%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO232+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 12:27:54 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 10.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 11 ~; 7 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 9 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X2] :
( line(X2)
=> unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(oag5,axiom,
! [X2] : ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag5) ).
fof(oag8,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( ( line(X3)
& line(X2) )
=> ( unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3))
| unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag8) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2] :
( line(X2)
=> unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X2)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X2] : ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,X2),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[oag5]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk1_0))
& line(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X15,X16] :
( unequally_directed_lines(X15,reverse_line(X16))
| unequally_directed_lines(X15,X16)
| ~ line(X16)
| ~ line(X15) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag8])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X8] : ~ unequally_directed_lines(X8,X8),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk1_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ line(X2)
| ~ line(X1)
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2))
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
line(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO232+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/10.38 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.10/10.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/10.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/10.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/10.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/10.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/10.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/10.38 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:15:05 UTC 2026
% 0.10/10.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/10.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/10.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/10.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/10.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % new_bool_1 with pid 255129 completed with status 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.15/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/10.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/10.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/10.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 255131 completed with status 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/10.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/10.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/10.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/10.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/10.44
% 0.15/10.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/10.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/10.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/10.44 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.15/10.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 26
% 0.15/10.44 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.15/10.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 10
% 0.15/10.44 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.15/10.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.15/10.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.15/10.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.15/10.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.15/10.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.15/10.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.15/10.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/10.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.15/10.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.15/10.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 16
% 0.15/10.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.15/10.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/10.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 973
% 0.15/10.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 316
% 0.15/10.44
% 0.15/10.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/10.44 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/10.44 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/10.44 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/10.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3624 pages
% 0.15/10.44
% 0.15/10.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/10.44 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/10.44 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/10.44 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/10.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/10.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------