TSTP Solution File: GEO227+1 by ET---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : ET---2.0
% Problem : GEO227+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_ET %s %d
% Computer : n010.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 04:04:55 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 1.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 32 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 36 ( 16 ~; 9 |; 8 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
! [X2,X3] :
( ( line(X2)
& line(X3) )
=> ~ ( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3)
& ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',con) ).
fof(oag8,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( ( line(X2)
& line(X3) )
=> ( unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3)
| unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GEO007+0.ax',oag8) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X2,X3] :
( ( line(X2)
& line(X3) )
=> ~ ( ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,X3)
& ~ unequally_directed_lines(X2,reverse_line(X3)) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X4,X5] :
( ~ line(X4)
| ~ line(X5)
| unequally_directed_lines(X4,X5)
| unequally_directed_lines(X4,reverse_line(X5)) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[oag8])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( line(esk1_0)
& line(esk2_0)
& ~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& ~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(X2))
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,X2)
| ~ line(X2)
| ~ line(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
line(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( unequally_directed_lines(X1,reverse_line(esk2_0))
| unequally_directed_lines(X1,esk2_0)
| ~ line(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
line(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,reverse_line(esk2_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ unequally_directed_lines(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : GEO227+1 : TPTP v8.1.0. Bugfixed v6.4.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : run_ET %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n010.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 18:43:53 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/1.41 # Running protocol protocol_eprover_4a02c828a8cc55752123edbcc1ad40e453c11447 for 23 seconds:
% 0.22/1.41 # SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.4,,04,100,1.0)
% 0.22/1.41 # Preprocessing time : 0.015 s
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof found!
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/1.41 # SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object total steps : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause steps : 7
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula steps : 5
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object conjectures : 9
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object clause conjectures : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object formula conjectures : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial clauses used : 5
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object initial formulas used : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object generating inferences : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Proof object simplifying inferences : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.22/1.41 # Parsed axioms : 32
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 26
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Processed clauses : 13
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # ...subsumed : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.22/1.41 # Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Generated clauses : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # ...of the previous two non-trivial : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Paramodulations : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.22/1.41 # ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 14
% 0.22/1.41 # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 12
% 0.22/1.41 # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.22/1.41 # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.22/1.41 # Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/1.41 # Termbank termtop insertions : 1074
% 0.22/1.41
% 0.22/1.41 # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/1.41 # User time : 0.014 s
% 0.22/1.41 # System time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.22/1.41 # Maximum resident set size: 2716 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------