%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT008-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 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 01:04:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 12
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 19 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 18 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 : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 34 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(absorption,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',absorption) ).
cnf(distribution,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X3,X1),meet(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',distribution) ).
cnf(prove_absorbtion_dual,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(a,b)) != a,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_absorbtion_dual) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
absorption ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X3,X1),meet(X2,X1)),
distribution ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
meet(meet(X1,X2),meet(X2,join(X3,X1))) = meet(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
meet(meet(X1,X2),X2) = meet(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
meet(X1,join(meet(X2,X1),X3)) = meet(X1,join(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]),c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,X1))) = meet(X1,join(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]),c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
meet(X1,meet(X1,join(X2,X3))) = meet(X1,join(X3,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_4]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
meet(X1,join(X2,X1)) = meet(X1,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
meet(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
join(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_11]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
join(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(a,b)) != a,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_absorbtion_dual]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_13]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(a,b)) != a,
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LAT008-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:09:24 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
% 0.12/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 993627 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.43 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 993632 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.43 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.12/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.12/0.43 % Processed clauses : 19
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 19
% 0.12/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.12/0.43 % Generated clauses : 202
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 138
% 0.12/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Paramodulations : 202
% 0.12/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 110
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of those cached : 67
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.12/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.12/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.12/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 119
% 0.12/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 119
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.12/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.12/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 116
% 0.12/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 62
% 0.12/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1356
% 0.12/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.43 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.43 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.43 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.43 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------