%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP168-1 : 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 : n020.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 12:38:49 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 5.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 equ; 5 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_p01a,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(multiply(inverse(c),multiply(a,c)),multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c))) != multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_p01a) ).
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(monotony_lub1,axiom,
multiply(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',monotony_lub1) ).
cnf(p01a_1,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(a,b) = b,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p01a_1) ).
cnf(monotony_lub2,axiom,
multiply(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X3),multiply(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',monotony_lub2) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(multiply(inverse(c),multiply(a,c)),multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c))) != multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_p01a]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(multiply(inverse(c),multiply(a,c)),multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c))) != multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_lub ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),multiply(inverse(c),multiply(a,c))) != multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
multiply(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3)),
monotony_lub1 ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(a,b) = b,
p01a_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
multiply(inverse(c),least_upper_bound(multiply(b,c),multiply(a,c))) != multiply(inverse(c),multiply(b,c)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
multiply(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X3),multiply(X2,X3)),
monotony_lub2 ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(b,a) = b,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GRP168-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.42 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.15/5.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/5.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/5.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/5.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/5.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/5.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/5.42 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:04:38 UTC 2026
% 0.15/5.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/5.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.47 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.47 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
% 0.15/5.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/5.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1101849 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/5.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/5.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/5.49 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.49 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1101854 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.15/5.49 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/5.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/5.49 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.49 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/5.49 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/5.49
% 0.15/5.49 % Proof found!
% 0.15/5.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/5.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/5.49 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.15/5.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.15/5.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.15/5.49 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.15/5.49 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 18
% 0.15/5.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.15/5.49 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.15/5.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.15/5.49 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.15/5.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.15/5.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.15/5.49 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.15/5.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.15/5.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.15/5.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 19
% 0.15/5.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 14
% 0.15/5.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/5.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 261
% 0.15/5.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.15/5.49
% 0.15/5.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.49 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/5.49 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/5.49 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/5.49 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.15/5.49
% 0.15/5.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.49 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/5.49 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/5.49 % Total time : 0.026 s
% 0.15/5.49 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/5.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------