%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP139-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 12:38:44 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.09s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 16 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 15 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_ax_glb1b,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),c) != c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ax_glb1b) ).
cnf(ax_glb1b_1_1,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(a,c) = c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_glb1b_1_1) ).
cnf(symmetry_of_glb,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_glb) ).
cnf(associativity_of_glb,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X2,X3)) = greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',associativity_of_glb) ).
cnf(ax_glb1b_2_2,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,c) = c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_glb1b_2_2) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),c) != c,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_ax_glb1b]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(a,c) = c,
ax_glb1b_1_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_glb ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),c) != c,
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X2,X3)) = greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2),X3),
associativity_of_glb ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(c,a) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,c) = c,
ax_glb1b_2_2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(c,greatest_lower_bound(a,b)) != c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(c,greatest_lower_bound(a,X1)) = greatest_lower_bound(c,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(c,b) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP139-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:02:20 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.41 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.09/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2226249 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % new_bool_1 with pid 2226257 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses : 18
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 18
% 0.09/0.42 % Processed clauses : 36
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 36
% 0.09/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % Generated clauses : 46
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 30
% 0.09/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Paramodulations : 46
% 0.09/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 30
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of those cached : 7
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 30
% 0.09/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 30
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 22
% 0.09/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 45
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 37
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 584
% 0.09/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.09/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------