%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO247+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 : 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 12:27:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 32 ( 6 ~; 1 |; 23 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 7 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 2 sgn 16 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X1,X4,X5,X7,X2,X3] :
( ( left_apart_point(X7,X3)
& left_apart_point(X7,reverse_line(X2))
& left_apart_point(X5,reverse_line(X3))
& left_apart_point(X5,X2)
& left_apart_point(X4,reverse_line(X3))
& left_apart_point(X4,reverse_line(X2))
& left_apart_point(X1,X3)
& left_apart_point(X1,X2) )
=> convergent_lines(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
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_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X4,X5,X7,X2,X3] :
( ( left_apart_point(X7,X3)
& left_apart_point(X7,reverse_line(X2))
& left_apart_point(X5,reverse_line(X3))
& left_apart_point(X5,X2)
& left_apart_point(X4,reverse_line(X3))
& left_apart_point(X4,reverse_line(X2))
& left_apart_point(X1,X3)
& left_apart_point(X1,X2) )
=> convergent_lines(X2,X3) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ convergent_lines(esk5_0,esk6_0)
& left_apart_point(esk4_0,esk6_0)
& left_apart_point(esk4_0,reverse_line(esk5_0))
& left_apart_point(esk3_0,reverse_line(esk6_0))
& left_apart_point(esk3_0,esk5_0)
& left_apart_point(esk2_0,reverse_line(esk6_0))
& left_apart_point(esk2_0,reverse_line(esk5_0))
& left_apart_point(esk1_0,esk6_0)
& left_apart_point(esk1_0,esk5_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X16,X17] :
( ~ left_apart_point(X16,reverse_line(X17))
& ~ left_apart_point(X16,X17) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag10])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
left_apart_point(esk1_0,esk5_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
~ left_apart_point(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO247+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.37 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:27:08 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.41 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
% 0.13/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1780846 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % partial match(1): FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1780849 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % partial match(1): FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 23
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses : 23
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 23
% 0.13/0.42 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.13/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.13/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 39
% 0.13/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.13/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1447
% 0.13/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 426
% 0.13/0.43
% 0.13/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.43 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.43 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.43 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.13/0.43
% 0.13/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.43 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.43 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.43 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------