TSTP Solution File: GEO214+2 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : GEO214+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n022.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 04:04:46 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 1.40s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 60 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 58 ( 20 ~; 27 |; 7 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 0 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X6,X7] :
( unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7)
=> unorthogonal_lines(X7,X6) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',con) ).
fof(oac1,axiom,
! [X6,X7,X8] :
( ( convergent_lines(X6,X7)
& unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7) )
=> ( ( convergent_lines(X6,X8)
& unorthogonal_lines(X6,X8) )
| ( convergent_lines(X7,X8)
& unorthogonal_lines(X7,X8) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',oac1) ).
fof(occu1,axiom,
! [X6,X7] :
( convergent_lines(X6,X7)
| unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO006+3.ax',occu1) ).
fof(apart3,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ convergent_lines(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',apart3) ).
fof(apart6,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
=> ( convergent_lines(X1,X3)
| convergent_lines(X2,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO008+0.ax',apart6) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X6,X7] :
( unorthogonal_lines(X6,X7)
=> unorthogonal_lines(X7,X6) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X9,X10,X11] :
( ( convergent_lines(X10,X11)
| convergent_lines(X9,X11)
| ~ convergent_lines(X9,X10)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X9,X10) )
& ( unorthogonal_lines(X10,X11)
| convergent_lines(X9,X11)
| ~ convergent_lines(X9,X10)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X9,X10) )
& ( convergent_lines(X10,X11)
| unorthogonal_lines(X9,X11)
| ~ convergent_lines(X9,X10)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X9,X10) )
& ( unorthogonal_lines(X10,X11)
| unorthogonal_lines(X9,X11)
| ~ convergent_lines(X9,X10)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X9,X10) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oac1])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( unorthogonal_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& ~ unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk1_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X8,X9] :
( convergent_lines(X8,X9)
| unorthogonal_lines(X8,X9) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[occu1]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( convergent_lines(X1,X3)
| unorthogonal_lines(X2,X3)
| ~ unorthogonal_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
unorthogonal_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X2] : ~ convergent_lines(X2,X2),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[apart3])]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( ~ convergent_lines(X4,X5)
| convergent_lines(X4,X6)
| convergent_lines(X5,X6) ),
inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[apart6])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( unorthogonal_lines(X1,X2)
| convergent_lines(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( unorthogonal_lines(esk2_0,X1)
| convergent_lines(esk1_0,X1)
| ~ convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
~ convergent_lines(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
| convergent_lines(X3,X2)
| ~ convergent_lines(X3,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
convergent_lines(esk2_0,esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_15]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
( convergent_lines(esk2_0,X1)
| convergent_lines(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : GEO214+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Fri Jun 17 18:18:47 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % 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 : 0.014 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 : 22
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object clause steps : 11
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object formula steps : 11
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object conjectures : 10
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object clause conjectures : 7
% 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 : 5
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object generating inferences : 5
% 0.21/1.40 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 2
% 0.21/1.40 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.21/1.40 # Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.21/1.40 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 6
% 0.21/1.40 # Initial clauses : 19
% 0.21/1.40 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Initial clauses in saturation : 19
% 0.21/1.40 # Processed clauses : 27
% 0.21/1.40 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.21/1.40 # ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 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 : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Generated clauses : 28
% 0.21/1.40 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 22
% 0.21/1.40 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.21/1.40 # Paramodulations : 28
% 0.21/1.40 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of processed clauses : 25
% 0.21/1.40 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.21/1.40 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.21/1.40 # Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 14
% 0.21/1.40 # ...number of literals in the above : 64
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 44
% 0.21/1.40 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% 0.21/1.40 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.21/1.40 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.21/1.40 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/1.40 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1602
% 0.21/1.40
% 0.21/1.40 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/1.40 # User time : 0.011 s
% 0.21/1.40 # System time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/1.40 # Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.21/1.40 # Maximum resident set size: 2828 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------