TSTP Solution File: GEO185+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : GEO185+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n025.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 04:04:25 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 50 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 50 ( 21 ~; 15 |; 9 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 0 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
( ( distinct_points(X1,X2)
& convergent_lines(X4,X5)
& ~ distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X4,X5)) )
=> ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X4)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X5) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',con) ).
fof(ceq1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
=> ( distinct_points(X1,X3)
| apart_point_and_line(X3,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ceq1) ).
fof(ci4,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci4) ).
fof(ci3,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+0.ax',ci3) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X4,X5] :
( ( distinct_points(X1,X2)
& convergent_lines(X4,X5)
& ~ distinct_points(X1,intersection_point(X4,X5)) )
=> ( ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X4)
& ~ apart_point_and_line(X1,X5) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ apart_point_and_line(X4,X5)
| distinct_points(X4,X6)
| apart_point_and_line(X6,X5) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ceq1])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( distinct_points(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& convergent_lines(esk3_0,esk4_0)
& ~ distinct_points(esk1_0,intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0))
& ( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk4_0) ) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,X2)
| distinct_points(X3,X1)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk4_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ convergent_lines(X3,X4)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X3,X4),X4) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci4])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ distinct_points(esk1_0,intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0)
| apart_point_and_line(X1,esk4_0)
| distinct_points(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2)
| ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0),esk4_0)
| apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
convergent_lines(esk3_0,esk4_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
apart_point_and_line(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).
fof(c_0_16,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ~ convergent_lines(X3,X4)
| ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X3,X4),X3) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ci3])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
( apart_point_and_line(X1,esk3_0)
| distinct_points(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1)
| ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(esk3_0,esk4_0),esk3_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.11 % Problem : GEO185+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n025.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 17:16:28 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/1.40 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.21/1.40 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.21/1.40 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.21/1.40
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof found!
% 0.21/1.40 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/1.40 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object total steps : 21
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 12
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 9
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 12
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 9
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object initial clauses used : 6
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object initial formulas used : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 6
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.21/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 15
% 0.21/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.21/1.40 # Initial clauses : 16
% 0.21/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.21/1.40 # Processed clauses : 37
% 0.21/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # ...subsumed : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 33
% 0.21/1.40 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Generated clauses : 64
% 0.21/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 53
% 0.21/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Paramodulations : 60
% 0.21/1.40 # Factorizations : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 29
% 0.21/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.21/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 19
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 27
% 0.21/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 92
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 42
% 0.21/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 29
% 0.21/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.21/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.21/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.21/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1628
% 0.21/1.40
% 0.21/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/1.40 # User time : 0.015 s
% 0.21/1.40 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.21/1.40 # Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.21/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2816 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------