%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP147-1 : 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 : n003.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 12:42:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.58s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.58s
% 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/sandbox/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/sandbox/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/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',associativity_of_lub) ).
cnf(ax_lub1b_2,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,c) = b,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax_lub1b_2) ).
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(prove_ax_lub1b,negated_conjecture,
greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a,b),c) != least_upper_bound(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_ax_lub1b) ).
cnf(ax_lub1b_1,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(a,c) = a,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP147-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.37 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:04:15 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.41 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
% 0.58/0.50 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.58/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.58/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2457797 completed with status 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.58/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.58/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.58/0.50 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.58/0.50 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.58/0.50 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with pid 2457804 completed with status 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Result found by SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG
% 0.58/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.58/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.58/0.50 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.58/0.50 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.58/0.50 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.58/0.50 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.58/0.50 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.58/0.50
% 0.58/0.50 % Proof found!
% 0.58/0.50 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.58/0.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.58/0.50 % Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.58/0.50 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Initial clauses : 18
% 0.58/0.50 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Initial clauses in saturation : 18
% 0.58/0.50 % Processed clauses : 903
% 0.58/0.50 % ...of these trivial : 361
% 0.58/0.50 % ...subsumed : 304
% 0.58/0.50 % ...remaining for further processing : 238
% 0.58/0.50 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Backward-rewritten : 36
% 0.58/0.50 % Generated clauses : 12036
% 0.58/0.50 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6572
% 0.58/0.50 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Paramodulations : 12036
% 0.58/0.50 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % NegExts : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Total rewrite steps : 14771
% 0.58/0.50 % ...of those cached : 11194
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.58/0.50 % Current number of processed clauses : 184
% 0.58/0.50 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 173
% 0.58/0.50 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 10
% 0.58/0.50 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.58/0.50 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5643
% 0.58/0.50 % ...number of literals in the above : 5643
% 0.58/0.50 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Current number of archived clauses : 54
% 0.58/0.50 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 16
% 0.58/0.50 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % BW rewrite match attempts : 438
% 0.58/0.50 % BW rewrite match successes : 182
% 0.58/0.50 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.58/0.50 % Termbank termtop insertions : 114300
% 0.58/0.50 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.58/0.50
% 0.58/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.58/0.50 % User time : 0.058 s
% 0.58/0.50 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.58/0.50 % Total time : 0.064 s
% 0.58/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 3332 pages
% 0.58/0.50
% 0.58/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.58/0.50 % User time : 0.268 s
% 0.58/0.50 % System time : 0.028 s
% 0.58/0.50 % Total time : 0.296 s
% 0.58/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.58/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------