%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP175-4 : 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 : n005.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 12:38:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 25 ( 25 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 24 equ; 3 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 : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(p06d_1,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(identity,b) = identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p06d_1) ).
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(monotony_lub2,axiom,
multiply(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X3),multiply(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',monotony_lub2) ).
cnf(left_identity,axiom,
multiply(identity,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-0.ax',left_identity) ).
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(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(prove_p06d,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(identity,multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a))) != multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_p06d) ).
cnf(monotony_lub1,axiom,
multiply(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-2.ax',monotony_lub1) ).
cnf(left_inverse,axiom,
multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/GRP004-0.ax',left_inverse) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(identity,b) = identity,
p06d_1 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2) = greatest_lower_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_glb ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
multiply(least_upper_bound(X1,X2),X3) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X3),multiply(X2,X3)),
monotony_lub2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
multiply(identity,X1) = X1,
left_identity ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,X2) = least_upper_bound(X2,X1),
symmetry_of_lub ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
least_upper_bound(X1,greatest_lower_bound(X1,X2)) = X1,
lub_absorbtion ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
greatest_lower_bound(b,identity) = identity,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(identity,multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a))) != multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_p06d]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
multiply(X1,least_upper_bound(X2,X3)) = least_upper_bound(multiply(X1,X2),multiply(X1,X3)),
monotony_lub1 ).
cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = identity,
left_inverse ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
least_upper_bound(X1,multiply(X2,X1)) = multiply(least_upper_bound(X2,identity),X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(b,identity) = b,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
least_upper_bound(identity,multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a))) != multiply(inverse(a),multiply(b,a)),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
least_upper_bound(identity,multiply(inverse(X1),X2)) = multiply(inverse(X1),least_upper_bound(X2,X1)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
least_upper_bound(X1,multiply(b,X1)) = multiply(b,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_13]),c_0_23])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP175-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:03:50 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.41 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
% 0.12/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1643221 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with pid 1643228 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 178
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 48
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 34
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 96
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 2339
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1296
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 2339
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 2315
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 1612
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 89
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 79
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 10
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1130
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 1130
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 96
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 52
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 17704
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.066 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.081 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------