%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO261+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 12:28:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 53 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 57 ( 23 ~; 15 |; 14 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 6 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 37 ( 2 sgn 27 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X2,X3,X1,X4,X5] :
( ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X4,X3)
& convergent_lines(X2,X3)
& between_on_line(X2,X1,X4,X5) )
=> divides_points(X3,X1,X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(oag9,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( ( unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3))
& unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3) )
=> ( left_convergent_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3))
| left_convergent_lines(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag9) ).
fof(oag11,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
~ ( left_convergent_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3))
| left_convergent_lines(X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag11) ).
fof(con_def,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( convergent_lines(X2,X3)
<=> ( unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3))
& unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',con_def) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2,X3,X1,X4,X5] :
( ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X4,X3)
& convergent_lines(X2,X3)
& between_on_line(X2,X1,X4,X5) )
=> divides_points(X3,X1,X5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2,X3,X1,X4,X5] :
( ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X4,X3)
& convergent_lines(X2,X3)
& between_on_line(X2,X1,X4,X5) )
=> divides_points(X3,X1,X5) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X49,X50] :
( left_convergent_lines(X49,reverse_line(X50))
| left_convergent_lines(X49,X50)
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X49,reverse_line(X50))
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X49,X50) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag9])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X51,X52] :
( ~ left_convergent_lines(X51,reverse_line(X52))
& ~ left_convergent_lines(X51,X52) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag11])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X19,X20] :
( ( convergent_lines(X19,X20)
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X19,reverse_line(X20))
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X19,X20) )
& ( ~ convergent_lines(X19,X20)
| unequally_directed_lines(X19,reverse_line(X20)) )
& ( ~ convergent_lines(X19,X20)
| unequally_directed_lines(X19,X20) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[con_def])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ divides_points(esk2_0,esk3_0,esk5_0)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(esk4_0,esk2_0)
& convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& between_on_line(esk1_0,esk3_0,esk4_0,esk5_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2))
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
| left_convergent_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2))
| left_convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ left_convergent_lines(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GEO261+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 14:49:05 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.24/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % new_bool_1 with pid 1806622 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1806626 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 13
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses : 48
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 48
% 0.24/0.60 % Processed clauses : 88
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...subsumed : 36
% 0.24/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 52
% 0.24/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Generated clauses : 194
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 147
% 0.24/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Paramodulations : 166
% 0.24/0.60 % Factorizations : 28
% 0.24/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 32
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of those cached : 29
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 45
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 33
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 99
% 0.24/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 406
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 668
% 0.24/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 432
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.24/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.24/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4836
% 0.24/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 618
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3676 pages
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------