%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO249+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 : n013.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 12:27:59 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 10 ~; 4 |; 6 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 4 sgn 14 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X3,X6,X4] :
( ( right_apart_point(X6,parallel_through_point(X4,X3))
& right_apart_point(X3,X4) )
=> right_apart_point(X6,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(a2_defns,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( right_apart_point(X1,X2)
<=> left_apart_point(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',a2_defns) ).
fof(ax10_basics,axiom,
! [X3,X4] :
~ ( left_apart_point(X3,reverse_line(X4))
| left_apart_point(X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',ax10_basics) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X3,X6,X4] :
( ( right_apart_point(X6,parallel_through_point(X4,X3))
& right_apart_point(X3,X4) )
=> right_apart_point(X6,X4) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X12,X13] :
( ( right_apart_point(X12,X13)
| ~ left_apart_point(X12,reverse_line(X13)) )
& ( left_apart_point(X12,reverse_line(X13))
| ~ right_apart_point(X12,X13) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[a2_defns])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X22,X23] :
( ~ left_apart_point(X22,reverse_line(X23))
& ~ left_apart_point(X22,X23) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax10_basics])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ right_apart_point(esk2_0,esk3_0)
& right_apart_point(esk2_0,parallel_through_point(esk3_0,esk1_0))
& right_apart_point(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ right_apart_point(X1,X2)
| left_apart_point(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
~ left_apart_point(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
right_apart_point(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ right_apart_point(X1,X2),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GEO249+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:34:08 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.12/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 2896673 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.44 % Search class: FGHNS-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2896676 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.44 % Search class: FGHNS-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 37
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 15
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses : 34
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 34
% 0.12/0.44 % Processed clauses : 22
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.12/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.12/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.12/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 18
% 0.12/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 58
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.12/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2351
% 0.12/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 502
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------