TSTP Solution File: GEO226+3 by Enigma---0.5.1

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Enigma---0.5.1
% Problem  : GEO226+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1

% Computer : n013.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 03:44:40 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 7.83s 2.30s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 7.83s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   20 (   6 unt;   6 nHn;  14 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   36 (   0 equ;  18 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    :    3 (   3 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   26 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(i_0_26,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0)
    | ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_26) ).

cnf(i_0_3,plain,
    ( incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
    | apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_3) ).

cnf(i_0_16,plain,
    ( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | convergent_lines(X3,X2)
    | ~ convergent_lines(X3,X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_16) ).

cnf(i_0_28,negated_conjecture,
    convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_28) ).

cnf(i_0_23,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_23) ).

cnf(i_0_9,plain,
    ~ convergent_lines(X1,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_9) ).

cnf(i_0_22,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/enigma-theBenchmark.p-o44d6s2g/input.p',i_0_22) ).

cnf(c_0_36,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0)
    | ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0) ),
    i_0_26 ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    ( incident_point_and_line(X1,X2)
    | apart_point_and_line(X1,X2) ),
    i_0_3 ).

cnf(c_0_38,negated_conjecture,
    ( apart_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0)
    | ~ incident_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_36,c_0_37]) ).

cnf(c_0_39,plain,
    ( convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | convergent_lines(X3,X2)
    | ~ convergent_lines(X3,X1) ),
    i_0_16 ).

cnf(c_0_40,negated_conjecture,
    convergent_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
    i_0_28 ).

cnf(c_0_41,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X2) ),
    i_0_23 ).

cnf(c_0_42,plain,
    ( apart_point_and_line(X1,esk2_0)
    | apart_point_and_line(X1,esk1_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_38,c_0_37]) ).

cnf(c_0_43,plain,
    ~ convergent_lines(X1,X1),
    i_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_44,negated_conjecture,
    ( convergent_lines(esk1_0,X1)
    | convergent_lines(esk2_0,X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_39,c_0_40]) ).

cnf(c_0_45,plain,
    ( ~ convergent_lines(X1,X2)
    | ~ apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,X2),X1) ),
    i_0_22 ).

cnf(c_0_46,plain,
    ( apart_point_and_line(intersection_point(X1,esk1_0),esk2_0)
    | ~ convergent_lines(X1,esk1_0) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_41,c_0_42]) ).

cnf(c_0_47,plain,
    convergent_lines(esk2_0,esk1_0),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_43,c_0_44]) ).

cnf(c_0_48,plain,
    $false,
    inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_45,c_0_46]),c_0_47])]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12  % Problem  : GEO226+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command  : enigmatic-eprover.py %s %d 1
% 0.13/0.34  % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.13/0.34  % DateTime : Sat Jun 18 02:37:31 EDT 2022
% 0.13/0.34  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.20/0.45  # ENIGMATIC: Selected SinE mode:
% 0.20/0.46  # Parsing /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.20/0.46  # Filter: axfilter_auto   0 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   0.p
% 0.20/0.46  # Filter: axfilter_auto   1 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   1.p
% 0.20/0.46  # Filter: axfilter_auto   2 goes into file theBenchmark_axfilter_auto   2.p
% 7.83/2.30  # ENIGMATIC: Solved by G_E___302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y:
% 7.83/2.30  # Version: 2.1pre011
% 7.83/2.30  # Preprocessing time       : 0.019 s
% 7.83/2.30  
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof found!
% 7.83/2.30  # SZS status Theorem
% 7.83/2.30  # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object total steps             : 20
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object clause steps            : 13
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object formula steps           : 7
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object conjectures             : 6
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 4
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 2
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 7
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 7
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object generating inferences   : 6
% 7.83/2.30  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 2
% 7.83/2.30  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 7.83/2.30  # Parsed axioms                        : 49
% 7.83/2.30  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Initial clauses                      : 49
% 7.83/2.30  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 49
% 7.83/2.30  # Processed clauses                    : 67
% 7.83/2.30  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # ...subsumed                          : 8
% 7.83/2.30  # ...remaining for further processing  : 59
% 7.83/2.30  # Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Generated clauses                    : 79
% 7.83/2.30  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 62
% 7.83/2.30  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 4
% 7.83/2.30  # Paramodulations                      : 77
% 7.83/2.30  # Factorizations                       : 2
% 7.83/2.30  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Propositional unsat check successes  : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Current number of processed clauses  : 59
% 7.83/2.30  #    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 6
% 7.83/2.30  #    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 7.83/2.30  #    Negative unit clauses             : 7
% 7.83/2.30  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 46
% 7.83/2.30  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 42
% 7.83/2.30  # ...number of literals in the above   : 146
% 7.83/2.30  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 369
% 7.83/2.30  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 181
% 7.83/2.30  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 12
% 7.83/2.30  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 7.83/2.30  # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 7.83/2.30  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 1793
% 7.83/2.30  
% 7.83/2.30  # -------------------------------------------------
% 7.83/2.30  # User time                : 0.017 s
% 7.83/2.30  # System time              : 0.005 s
% 7.83/2.30  # Total time               : 0.022 s
% 7.83/2.30  # ...preprocessing         : 0.019 s
% 7.83/2.30  # ...main loop             : 0.003 s
% 7.83/2.30  # Maximum resident set size: 7128 pages
% 7.83/2.30  
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------