%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP145-1 : 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 : n019.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 12:38:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 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; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 5 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_ax_glb3b,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),b) != greatest_lower_bound(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ax_glb3b) ).
cnf(glb_absorbtion,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',glb_absorbtion) ).
cnf(symmetry_of_lub,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_lub) ).
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(lub_absorbtion,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',lub_absorbtion) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),b) != greatest_lower_bound(a,b),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_ax_glb3b]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
glb_absorbtion ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_lub ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(greatest_lower_bound(a,b),b) != greatest_lower_bound(a,b),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_glb ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X1)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
lub_absorbtion ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(b,greatest_lower_bound(b,a)) != greatest_lower_bound(b,a),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GRP145-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:02:19 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.41 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
% 0.15/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 801539 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.43 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 801542 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.43 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.43
% 0.15/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 16
% 0.15/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.15/0.43 % Initial clauses : 14
% 0.15/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.15/0.43 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.15/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.15/0.43 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.15/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.43 % Generated clauses : 32
% 0.15/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.15/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Paramodulations : 32
% 0.15/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 23
% 0.15/0.43 % ...of those cached : 13
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.15/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.15/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 10
% 0.15/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.15/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.15/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.15/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 252
% 0.15/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.15/0.43
% 0.15/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.43 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.43 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.43 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.15/0.43
% 0.15/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.43 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.43 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.43 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------