TSTP Solution File: GEO221+2 by Beagle---0.9.51

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Beagle---0.9.51
% Problem  : GEO221+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s

% Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Tue Aug 22 10:38:45 EDT 2023

% Result   : Theorem 5.09s 2.20s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 5.09s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :   16
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :   28 (  10 unt;  12 typ;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   30 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    5 (   1 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   23 (   9   ~;  12   |;   0   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   10 (   4 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of types       :    2 (   0 usr)
%            Number of type conns  :   18 (   9   >;   9   *;   0   +;   0  <<)
%            Number of predicates  :    6 (   5 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   3 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   23 (;  23   !;   0   ?;   0   :)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%$ unorthogonal_lines > distinct_points > distinct_lines > convergent_lines > apart_point_and_line > parallel_through_point > orthogonal_through_point > line_connecting > intersection_point > #nlpp > #skF_2 > #skF_3 > #skF_1

%Foreground sorts:

%Background operators:

%Foreground operators:
tff(line_connecting,type,
    line_connecting: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(distinct_points,type,
    distinct_points: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(intersection_point,type,
    intersection_point: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(parallel_through_point,type,
    parallel_through_point: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff(apart_point_and_line,type,
    apart_point_and_line: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(convergent_lines,type,
    convergent_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(orthogonal_through_point,type,
    orthogonal_through_point: ( $i * $i ) > $i ).

tff('#skF_2',type,
    '#skF_2': $i ).

tff('#skF_3',type,
    '#skF_3': $i ).

tff('#skF_1',type,
    '#skF_1': $i ).

tff(unorthogonal_lines,type,
    unorthogonal_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(distinct_lines,type,
    distinct_lines: ( $i * $i ) > $o ).

tff(f_215,axiom,
    ! [A,L] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(L,A),L),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ooc1) ).

tff(f_238,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [A,B,L] :
        ( ~ apart_point_and_line(B,orthogonal_through_point(L,A))
       => ~ distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point(L,A),orthogonal_through_point(L,B)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',con) ).

tff(f_229,axiom,
    ! [A,L,M,N] :
      ( distinct_lines(L,M)
     => ( apart_point_and_line(A,L)
        | apart_point_and_line(A,M)
        | unorthogonal_lines(L,N)
        | unorthogonal_lines(M,N) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ouo1) ).

tff(f_218,axiom,
    ! [A,L] : ~ apart_point_and_line(A,orthogonal_through_point(L,A)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',ooc2) ).

tff(c_46,plain,
    ! [L_44,A_43] : ~ unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point(L_44,A_43),L_44),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_215]) ).

tff(c_54,plain,
    ~ apart_point_and_line('#skF_2',orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1')),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_238]) ).

tff(c_52,plain,
    distinct_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1'),orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_2')),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_238]) ).

tff(c_1146,plain,
    ! [M_223,N_224,L_225,A_226] :
      ( unorthogonal_lines(M_223,N_224)
      | unorthogonal_lines(L_225,N_224)
      | apart_point_and_line(A_226,M_223)
      | apart_point_and_line(A_226,L_225)
      | ~ distinct_lines(L_225,M_223) ),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_229]) ).

tff(c_1256,plain,
    ! [N_224,A_226] :
      ( unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_2'),N_224)
      | unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1'),N_224)
      | apart_point_and_line(A_226,orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_2'))
      | apart_point_and_line(A_226,orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1')) ),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_52,c_1146]) ).

tff(c_1304,plain,
    ! [A_245] :
      ( apart_point_and_line(A_245,orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_2'))
      | apart_point_and_line(A_245,orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1')) ),
    inference(splitLeft,[status(thm)],[c_1256]) ).

tff(c_48,plain,
    ! [A_45,L_46] : ~ apart_point_and_line(A_45,orthogonal_through_point(L_46,A_45)),
    inference(cnfTransformation,[status(thm)],[f_218]) ).

tff(c_1320,plain,
    apart_point_and_line('#skF_2',orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1')),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_1304,c_48]) ).

tff(c_1328,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_54,c_1320]) ).

tff(c_1341,plain,
    ! [N_250] :
      ( unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_2'),N_250)
      | unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1'),N_250) ),
    inference(splitRight,[status(thm)],[c_1256]) ).

tff(c_1353,plain,
    unorthogonal_lines(orthogonal_through_point('#skF_3','#skF_1'),'#skF_3'),
    inference(resolution,[status(thm)],[c_1341,c_46]) ).

tff(c_1361,plain,
    $false,
    inference(negUnitSimplification,[status(thm)],[c_46,c_1353]) ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.14  % Problem  : GEO221+2 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.12/0.15  % Command  : java -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms512M -Xmx4G -Xss10M -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/beagle.jar -auto -q -proof -print tff -smtsolver /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/cvc4-1.4-x86_64-linux-opt -liasolver cooper -t %d %s
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n031.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime : Fri Aug  4 01:07:00 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 5.09/2.20  % SZS status Theorem for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 5.09/2.20  
% 5.09/2.20  % SZS output start CNFRefutation for /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% See solution above
% 5.09/2.23  
% 5.09/2.23  Inference rules
% 5.09/2.23  ----------------------
% 5.09/2.23  #Ref     : 0
% 5.09/2.23  #Sup     : 252
% 5.09/2.23  #Fact    : 38
% 5.09/2.23  #Define  : 0
% 5.09/2.23  #Split   : 2
% 5.09/2.23  #Chain   : 0
% 5.09/2.23  #Close   : 0
% 5.09/2.23  
% 5.09/2.23  Ordering : KBO
% 5.09/2.23  
% 5.09/2.23  Simplification rules
% 5.09/2.23  ----------------------
% 5.09/2.23  #Subsume      : 59
% 5.09/2.23  #Demod        : 36
% 5.09/2.23  #Tautology    : 41
% 5.09/2.23  #SimpNegUnit  : 16
% 5.09/2.23  #BackRed      : 0
% 5.09/2.23  
% 5.09/2.23  #Partial instantiations: 0
% 5.09/2.23  #Strategies tried      : 1
% 5.09/2.23  
% 5.09/2.23  Timing (in seconds)
% 5.09/2.23  ----------------------
% 5.09/2.23  Preprocessing        : 0.51
% 5.09/2.23  Parsing              : 0.29
% 5.09/2.23  CNF conversion       : 0.03
% 5.09/2.23  Main loop            : 0.65
% 5.09/2.24  Inferencing          : 0.25
% 5.09/2.24  Reduction            : 0.16
% 5.09/2.24  Demodulation         : 0.10
% 5.09/2.24  BG Simplification    : 0.03
% 5.09/2.24  Subsumption          : 0.18
% 5.09/2.24  Abstraction          : 0.02
% 5.09/2.24  MUC search           : 0.00
% 5.09/2.24  Cooper               : 0.00
% 5.09/2.24  Total                : 1.21
% 5.09/2.24  Index Insertion      : 0.00
% 5.09/2.24  Index Deletion       : 0.00
% 5.09/2.24  Index Matching       : 0.00
% 5.09/2.24  BG Taut test         : 0.00
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------