↑ Up

E---3.5.1.THM-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : GEO238+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 : n002.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 12:27:56 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.09s 0.42s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    3
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   13 (   4 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   46 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :   18 (   3 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   52 (  19   ~;  16   |;  13   &)
%                                         (   1 <=>;   3  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   12 (   5 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   2 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   4 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   30 (   5 sgn  22   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
    ! [X1,X4,X5,X2] :
      ( ( divides_points(X2,X1,X5)
        & divides_points(X2,X1,X4) )
     => ~ divides_points(X2,X4,X5) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).

fof(div_def,axiom,
    ! [X1,X4,X2] :
      ( divides_points(X2,X1,X4)
    <=> ( ( left_apart_point(X4,X2)
          & left_apart_point(X1,reverse_line(X2)) )
        | ( left_apart_point(X4,reverse_line(X2))
          & left_apart_point(X1,X2) ) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',div_def) ).

fof(oag10,axiom,
    ! [X1,X2] :
      ~ ( left_apart_point(X1,reverse_line(X2))
        | left_apart_point(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag10) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X4,X5,X2] :
        ( ( divides_points(X2,X1,X5)
          & divides_points(X2,X1,X4) )
       => ~ divides_points(X2,X4,X5) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X1,X4,X5,X2] :
        ( ( divides_points(X2,X1,X5)
          & divides_points(X2,X1,X4) )
       => ~ divides_points(X2,X4,X5) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

fof(c_0_5,plain,
    ! [X11,X12,X13] :
      ( ( divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | ~ left_apart_point(X12,X13)
        | ~ left_apart_point(X11,reverse_line(X13)) )
      & ( divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | ~ left_apart_point(X12,reverse_line(X13))
        | ~ left_apart_point(X11,X13) )
      & ( ~ divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | left_apart_point(X12,reverse_line(X13))
        | left_apart_point(X12,X13) )
      & ( ~ divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | left_apart_point(X12,reverse_line(X13))
        | left_apart_point(X11,reverse_line(X13)) )
      & ( ~ divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | left_apart_point(X11,X13)
        | left_apart_point(X12,X13) )
      & ( ~ divides_points(X13,X11,X12)
        | left_apart_point(X11,X13)
        | left_apart_point(X11,reverse_line(X13)) ) ),
    inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[div_def])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_6,plain,
    ! [X14,X15] :
      ( ~ left_apart_point(X14,reverse_line(X15))
      & ~ left_apart_point(X14,X15) ),
    inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag10])])]) ).

fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    ( divides_points(esk4_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)
    & divides_points(esk4_0,esk1_0,esk3_0)
    & divides_points(esk4_0,esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ divides_points(X2,X3,X1)
    | left_apart_point(X3,X2)
    | left_apart_point(X1,X2) ),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ~ left_apart_point(X1,X2),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    divides_points(esk4_0,esk1_0,esk2_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).

cnf(c_0_11,plain,
    ~ divides_points(X1,X2,X3),
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).

cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : GEO238+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36  % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.09/0.36  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:19:16 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.09/0.36  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40  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
% 0.09/0.42  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % new_bool_3 with pid 1135266 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.09/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1135269 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.42  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42  % Search class: FGUNF-FFSS11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42  
% 0.09/0.42  % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.42  % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.42  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.42  % Parsed axioms                        : 32
% 0.09/0.42  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 23
% 0.09/0.42  % Initial clauses                      : 20
% 0.09/0.42  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 20
% 0.09/0.42  % Processed clauses                    : 12
% 0.09/0.42  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.09/0.42  % ...remaining for further processing  : 9
% 0.09/0.42  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Generated clauses                    : 3
% 0.09/0.42  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Paramodulations                      : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42  % Current number of processed clauses  : 6
% 0.09/0.42  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.42  %    Negative unit clauses             : 4
% 0.09/0.42  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.09/0.42  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8
% 0.09/0.42  % ...number of literals in the above   : 27
% 0.09/0.42  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Current number of archived clauses   : 3
% 0.09/0.42  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.09/0.42  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.09/0.42  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 1
% 0.09/0.42  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 1
% 0.09/0.42  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.09/0.42  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 1387
% 0.09/0.42  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 382
% 0.09/0.42  
% 0.09/0.42  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42  % User time                : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.42  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.42  % Total time               : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.42  % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.09/0.42  
% 0.09/0.42  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42  % User time                : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.42  % System time              : 0.008 s
% 0.09/0.42  % Total time               : 0.013 s
% 0.09/0.42  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.42  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------