TSTP Solution File: GEO257+3 by ET---2.0

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : ET---2.0
% Problem  : GEO257+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_ET %s %d

% Computer : n026.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 04:05:09 EDT 2022

% Result   : Theorem 0.21s 1.40s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    4
%            Number of leaves      :    2
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    8 (   3 unt;   0 def)
%            Number of atoms       :   28 (   0 equ)
%            Maximal formula atoms :    7 (   3 avg)
%            Number of connectives :   26 (   6   ~;   1   |;  15   &)
%                                         (   0 <=>;   4  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
%            Maximal formula depth :   11 (   6 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-3 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    6 (   6 usr;   5 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   18 (   4 sgn  16   !;   0   ?)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(con,conjecture,
    ! [X4,X3,X6,X7,X9] :
      ( ( distinct_points(X3,X7)
        & distinct_points(X6,X7)
        & incident_point_and_line(X7,X4)
        & left_apart_point(X9,X4) )
     => ( ( before_on_line(X4,X3,X6)
          & before_on_line(X4,X6,X7) )
       => before_on_line(X4,X3,X7) ) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/../tmp/theBenchmark.p.mepo_128.in',con) ).

fof(ax10_basics,axiom,
    ! [X3,X4] :
      ~ ( left_apart_point(X3,X4)
        | left_apart_point(X3,reverse_line(X4)) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GEO009+0.ax',ax10_basics) ).

fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ ! [X4,X3,X6,X7,X9] :
        ( ( distinct_points(X3,X7)
          & distinct_points(X6,X7)
          & incident_point_and_line(X7,X4)
          & left_apart_point(X9,X4) )
       => ( ( before_on_line(X4,X3,X6)
            & before_on_line(X4,X6,X7) )
         => before_on_line(X4,X3,X7) ) ),
    inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).

fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
    ( distinct_points(esk2_0,esk4_0)
    & distinct_points(esk3_0,esk4_0)
    & incident_point_and_line(esk4_0,esk1_0)
    & left_apart_point(esk5_0,esk1_0)
    & before_on_line(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)
    & before_on_line(esk1_0,esk3_0,esk4_0)
    & ~ before_on_line(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk4_0) ),
    inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).

fof(c_0_4,plain,
    ! [X5,X6,X5,X6] :
      ( ~ left_apart_point(X5,X6)
      & ~ left_apart_point(X5,reverse_line(X6)) ),
    inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax10_basics])])])]) ).

cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
    left_apart_point(esk5_0,esk1_0),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).

cnf(c_0_6,plain,
    ~ left_apart_point(X1,X2),
    inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11  % Problem  : GEO257+3 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.06/0.12  % Command  : run_ET %s %d
% 0.11/0.32  % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.32  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.32  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.32  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.32  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.32  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.32  % WCLimit  : 600
% 0.11/0.32  % DateTime : Sat Jun 18 01:03:24 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.33  % 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       : 0.017 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             : 8
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object clause steps            : 3
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object formula steps           : 5
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object conjectures             : 5
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object clause conjectures      : 2
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object formula conjectures     : 3
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object initial clauses used    : 2
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object initial formulas used   : 2
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object generating inferences   : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Proof object simplifying inferences  : 1
% 0.21/1.40  # Training examples: 0 positive, 0 negative
% 0.21/1.40  # Parsed axioms                        : 37
% 0.21/1.40  # Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 15
% 0.21/1.40  # Initial clauses                      : 42
% 0.21/1.40  # Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Initial clauses in saturation        : 42
% 0.21/1.40  # Processed clauses                    : 11
% 0.21/1.40  # ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # ...remaining for further processing  : 11
% 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                    : 3
% 0.21/1.40  # ...of the previous two non-trivial   : 1
% 0.21/1.40  # Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Paramodulations                      : 2
% 0.21/1.40  # Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Current number of processed clauses  : 10
% 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             : 2
% 0.21/1.40  #    Non-unit-clauses                  : 2
% 0.21/1.40  # Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.21/1.40  # ...number of literals in the above   : 78
% 0.21/1.40  # Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Current number of archived clauses   : 1
% 0.21/1.40  # Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 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           : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.21/1.40  # Termbank termtop insertions          : 2238
% 0.21/1.40  
% 0.21/1.40  # -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/1.40  # User time                : 0.016 s
% 0.21/1.40  # System time              : 0.001 s
% 0.21/1.40  # Total time               : 0.017 s
% 0.21/1.40  # Maximum resident set size: 2776 pages
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------