%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GEO265+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 : n016.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 12:28:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 10.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 39 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 37 ( 17 ~; 9 |; 4 &)
% ( 5 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 0 sgn 20 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( equally_directed_lines(X4,reverse_line(X5))
=> equally_directed_opposite_lines(X4,X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).
fof(a5_defns,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( equally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2)
<=> ~ unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',a5_defns) ).
fof(a4_defns,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( equally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
<=> ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',a4_defns) ).
fof(a1_defns,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2)
<=> unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',a1_defns) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4,X5] :
( equally_directed_lines(X4,reverse_line(X5))
=> equally_directed_opposite_lines(X4,X5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( equally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2)
<=> ~ unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[a5_defns]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( equally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
<=> ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[a4_defns]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ equally_directed_opposite_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& equally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X11,X12] :
( ( equally_directed_opposite_lines(X11,X12)
| unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X11,X12) )
& ( ~ unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X11,X12)
| ~ equally_directed_opposite_lines(X11,X12) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( ( equally_directed_lines(X13,X14)
| unequally_directed_lines(X13,X14) )
& ( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X13,X14)
| ~ equally_directed_lines(X13,X14) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X23,X24] :
( ( unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X23,X24)
| ~ unequally_directed_lines(X23,reverse_line(X24)) )
& ( unequally_directed_lines(X23,reverse_line(X24))
| ~ unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X23,X24) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[a1_defns])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ equally_directed_opposite_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( equally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2)
| unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ equally_directed_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
equally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ unequally_directed_opposite_lines(X1,X2)
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
unequally_directed_opposite_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GEO265+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/10.37 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.08/10.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/10.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/10.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/10.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/10.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/10.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/10.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 15:00:32 UTC 2026
% 0.08/10.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/10.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/10.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/10.41 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
% 0.13/10.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/10.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/10.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % new_bool_1 with pid 300818 completed with status 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.13/10.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/10.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/10.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/10.43 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/10.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 300821 completed with status 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/10.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/10.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/10.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/10.43 % Search class: FGHNF-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/10.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/10.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/10.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/10.43
% 0.13/10.43 % Proof found!
% 0.13/10.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/10.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/10.43 % Parsed axioms : 37
% 0.13/10.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 17
% 0.13/10.43 % Initial clauses : 32
% 0.13/10.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 32
% 0.13/10.43 % Processed clauses : 22
% 0.13/10.43 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.13/10.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 19
% 0.13/10.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.13/10.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.13/10.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.13/10.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/10.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 19
% 0.13/10.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.13/10.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.13/10.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.13/10.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.13/10.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 47
% 0.13/10.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 14
% 0.13/10.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 14
% 0.13/10.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.13/10.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/10.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2109
% 0.13/10.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 467
% 0.13/10.43
% 0.13/10.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/10.43 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/10.43 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/10.43 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.13/10.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3684 pages
% 0.13/10.43
% 0.13/10.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/10.43 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/10.43 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/10.43 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.13/10.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/10.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------