%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO256+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 : n019.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 12:28:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 35 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 38 ( 12 ~; 4 |; 16 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 6 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 2 sgn 19 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X2,X1,X4,X5,X7] :
( ( left_apart_point(X7,X2)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X5,X2)
& distinct_points(X4,X5)
& distinct_points(X1,X5) )
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X1,X4)
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X5,X4)
| before_on_line(X2,X1,X5) ) ) ),
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,
~ ! [X2,X1,X4,X5,X7] :
( ( left_apart_point(X7,X2)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X5,X2)
& distinct_points(X4,X5)
& distinct_points(X1,X5) )
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X1,X4)
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X5,X4)
| before_on_line(X2,X1,X5) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2,X1,X4,X5,X7] :
( ( left_apart_point(X7,X2)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X5,X2)
& distinct_points(X4,X5)
& distinct_points(X1,X5) )
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X1,X4)
=> ( before_on_line(X2,X5,X4)
| before_on_line(X2,X1,X5) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ before_on_line(esk1_0,esk4_0,esk3_0)
& ~ before_on_line(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk4_0)
& before_on_line(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)
& left_apart_point(esk5_0,esk1_0)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(esk4_0,esk1_0)
& distinct_points(esk3_0,esk4_0)
& distinct_points(esk2_0,esk4_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_5,plain,
! [X41,X42] :
( ~ left_apart_point(X41,reverse_line(X42))
& ~ left_apart_point(X41,X42) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag10])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
left_apart_point(esk5_0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
~ left_apart_point(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GEO256+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:39:49 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.49 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
% 0.24/0.55 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 397172 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.24/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.55 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.55 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.55 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % SubtermCWHack with pid 397176 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.55 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.55 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.55 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.55 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.24/0.55
% 0.24/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.55 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.24/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Initial clauses : 65
% 0.24/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 65
% 0.24/0.55 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.24/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.24/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.55 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.24/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.24/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.24/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 60
% 0.24/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 163
% 0.24/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.55 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3974
% 0.24/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 728
% 0.24/0.55
% 0.24/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.55 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.55 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.55 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.24/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.24/0.55
% 0.24/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.55 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/0.55 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.55 % Total time : 0.034 s
% 0.24/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------