%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP147-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 0.53s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 24 ( 24 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 23 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(lub_absorbtion,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',lub_absorbtion) ).
cnf(symmetry_of_glb,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_glb) ).
cnf(glb_absorbtion,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',glb_absorbtion) ).
cnf(associativity_of_lub,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',associativity_of_lub) ).
cnf(ax_lub1b_2,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,c) = b,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_lub1b_2) ).
cnf(symmetry_of_lub,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',symmetry_of_lub) ).
cnf(prove_ax_lub1b,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ax_lub1b) ).
cnf(ax_lub1b_1,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(a,c) = a,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_lub1b_1) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
lub_absorbtion ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_glb ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
glb_absorbtion ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3),
associativity_of_lub ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,c) = b,
ax_lub1b_2 ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_lub ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_ax_lub1b]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),least_upper_bound(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3))) = least_upper_bound(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(b,c) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(a,c) = a,
ax_lub1b_1 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(X1,b),least_upper_bound(X1,c)) = least_upper_bound(X1,b),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(a,c) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_18]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(c,least_upper_bound(a,b)) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_9]),c_0_22]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GRP147-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:07:22 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.40 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.53/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.53/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 679355 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.53/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.53/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.53/0.47 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 679361 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.53/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.53/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.53/0.47 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.53/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.53/0.47
% 0.53/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.53/0.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.53/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.53/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.53/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.53/0.47 % Initial clauses : 16
% 0.53/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.53/0.47 % Processed clauses : 908
% 0.53/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 286
% 0.53/0.47 % ...subsumed : 459
% 0.53/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 163
% 0.53/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 12
% 0.53/0.47 % Generated clauses : 13031
% 0.53/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6447
% 0.53/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Paramodulations : 13031
% 0.53/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 16114
% 0.53/0.47 % ...of those cached : 11653
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 151
% 0.53/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 142
% 0.53/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 8
% 0.53/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.53/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5490
% 0.53/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 5490
% 0.53/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 12
% 0.53/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 39
% 0.53/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 583
% 0.53/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 328
% 0.53/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.53/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 117031
% 0.53/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.53/0.47
% 0.53/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.47 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.53/0.47 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.53/0.47 % Total time : 0.056 s
% 0.53/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3384 pages
% 0.53/0.47
% 0.53/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.47 % User time : 0.053 s
% 0.53/0.47 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.53/0.47 % Total time : 0.062 s
% 0.53/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.53/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------