TSTP Solution File: GEO183+2 by Enigma---0.5.1
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem : GEO183+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% Computer : n006.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Sat Jul 16 03:44:03 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 6.72s 2.30s
% Output : CNFRefutation 6.72s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 9 unt; 7 nHn; 16 RR)
% Number of literals : 38 ( 0 equ; 14 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_8,plain,
( distinct_lines(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X3,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X3,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_8) ).
cnf(i_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_14) ).
cnf(i_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ distinct_lines(esk3_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_15) ).
cnf(i_0_11,plain,
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
| ~ distinct_points(X2,X3)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_11) ).
cnf(i_0_17,negated_conjecture,
distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_17) ).
cnf(i_0_1,plain,
~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_1) ).
cnf(i_0_10,plain,
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
| ~ distinct_points(X3,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X3,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-8ylqht3j/input.p',i_0_10) ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
( distinct_lines(X1,X2)
| apart_point_and_line(X3,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X3,X1) ),
i_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
i_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
~ distinct_lines(esk3_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
i_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,X1)
| distinct_lines(esk3_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
| ~ distinct_points(X2,X3)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X2,X3)) ),
i_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0))
| apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,negated_conjecture,
distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0),
i_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_32,plain,
~ distinct_points(X1,X1),
i_0_1 ).
cnf(c_0_33,plain,
apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,esk3_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]),c_0_31])]),c_0_32]) ).
cnf(c_0_34,plain,
( apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,X1)
| distinct_lines(esk3_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_33]) ).
cnf(c_0_35,plain,
( distinct_points(X1,X2)
| ~ distinct_points(X3,X2)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,line_connecting(X3,X2)) ),
i_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_36,negated_conjecture,
apart_point_and_line(esk2_0,line_connecting(esk1_0,esk2_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_34]) ).
cnf(c_0_37,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_35,c_0_36]),c_0_31])]),c_0_32]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.12 % Problem : GEO183+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Sat Jun 18 08:47:27 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.44 # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.19/0.45 # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.45 # Filter: axfilter_auto 0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 0.p
% 0.19/0.45 # Filter: axfilter_auto 1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 1.p
% 0.19/0.45 # Filter: axfilter_auto 2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto 2.p
% 6.72/2.30 # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y:
% 6.72/2.30 # Version: 2.1pre011
% 6.72/2.30 # Preprocessing time : 0.012 s
% 6.72/2.30
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof found!
% 6.72/2.30 # SZS status Theorem
% 6.72/2.30 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object total steps : 20
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object clause steps : 13
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object formula steps : 7
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object initial clauses used : 7
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object initial formulas used : 7
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 6.72/2.30 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 6
% 6.72/2.30 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 6.72/2.30 # Parsed axioms : 18
% 6.72/2.30 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Initial clauses : 18
% 6.72/2.30 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Initial clauses in saturation : 18
% 6.72/2.30 # Processed clauses : 39
% 6.72/2.30 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # ...subsumed : 4
% 6.72/2.30 # ...remaining for further processing : 35
% 6.72/2.30 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Backward-rewritten : 4
% 6.72/2.30 # Generated clauses : 62
% 6.72/2.30 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 52
% 6.72/2.30 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Paramodulations : 58
% 6.72/2.30 # Factorizations : 4
% 6.72/2.30 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Propositional unsat check successes : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Current number of processed clauses : 31
% 6.72/2.30 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 6.72/2.30 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Negative unit clauses : 5
% 6.72/2.30 # Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 6.72/2.30 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 23
% 6.72/2.30 # ...number of literals in the above : 86
% 6.72/2.30 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 6.72/2.30 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 39
% 6.72/2.30 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% 6.72/2.30 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 6.72/2.30 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 6.72/2.30 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 6.72/2.30 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 6.72/2.30 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Condensation successes : 0
% 6.72/2.30 # Termbank termtop insertions : 966
% 6.72/2.30
% 6.72/2.30 # -------------------------------------------------
% 6.72/2.30 # User time : 0.007 s
% 6.72/2.30 # System time : 0.006 s
% 6.72/2.30 # Total time : 0.013 s
% 6.72/2.30 # ...preprocessing : 0.012 s
% 6.72/2.30 # ...main loop : 0.001 s
% 6.72/2.30 # Maximum resident set size: 7136 pages
% 6.72/2.30
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------