%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT019-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 01:04:04 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 10.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 33 ( 33 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 32 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 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 : 72 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(associativity_of_meet,axiom,
meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',associativity_of_meet) ).
cnf(idempotence_of_meet,axiom,
meet(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',idempotence_of_meet) ).
cnf(quasi_lattice2,axiom,
meet(join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),join(X1,X2)) = join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',quasi_lattice2) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_meet,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',commutativity_of_meet) ).
cnf(associativity_of_join,axiom,
join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',associativity_of_join) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_join,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',commutativity_of_join) ).
cnf(distributivity_law,hypothesis,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',distributivity_law) ).
cnf(idempotence_of_join,axiom,
join(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT004-0.ax',idempotence_of_join) ).
cnf(prove_distributivity_law_dual,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,c)) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_distributivity_law_dual) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
meet(X1,X1) = X1,
idempotence_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
meet(join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),join(X1,X2)) = join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
quasi_lattice2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X1,X3)),
distributivity_law ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
meet(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = meet(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,meet(X2,X3))) = join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
join(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(X2,join(X1,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
join(X1,X1) = X1,
idempotence_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X1,X3))) = meet(X1,join(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
meet(join(X1,X2),join(X3,join(X1,meet(X2,X4)))) = join(X1,join(meet(join(X1,X2),X3),meet(X2,X4))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_17]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
join(X1,join(X1,X2)) = join(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = join(X1,meet(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X2,X3)) = meet(X2,join(X1,X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
meet(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = meet(X2,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,c)) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_distributivity_law_dual]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,X1))) = meet(X1,join(X2,X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
join(X1,meet(X2,join(X1,X3))) = join(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_17]),c_0_12]),c_0_23]),c_0_13]),c_0_24]),c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,meet(X3,X2))) = join(X1,meet(X3,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_25]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,c)) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
c_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_31,hypothesis,
meet(join(X1,X2),join(X1,X3)) = join(X1,meet(X3,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]),c_0_29]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_30,c_0_31]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LAT019-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/10.36 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.10/10.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/10.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/10.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/10.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/10.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/10.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/10.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:07:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/10.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/10.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/10.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/10.41 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
% 0.12/10.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3792652 completed with status 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.12/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/10.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/10.44 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/10.44 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting U----_206d_05_C11_08_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3792657 completed with status 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/10.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/10.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/10.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/10.44 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/10.44 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/10.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/10.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/10.44
% 0.12/10.44 % Proof found!
% 0.12/10.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/10.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/10.44 % Parsed axioms : 10
% 0.12/10.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.12/10.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 10
% 0.12/10.44 % Processed clauses : 375
% 0.12/10.44 % ...of these trivial : 140
% 0.12/10.44 % ...subsumed : 180
% 0.12/10.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 55
% 0.12/10.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.12/10.44 % Generated clauses : 3029
% 0.12/10.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2357
% 0.12/10.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Paramodulations : 3029
% 0.12/10.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Total rewrite steps : 3755
% 0.12/10.44 % ...of those cached : 2436
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/10.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 47
% 0.12/10.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 38
% 0.12/10.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 9
% 0.12/10.44 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1959
% 0.12/10.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 1959
% 0.12/10.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 8
% 0.12/10.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 16
% 0.12/10.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 125
% 0.12/10.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 63
% 0.12/10.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/10.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 28523
% 0.12/10.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.12/10.44
% 0.12/10.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/10.44 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.12/10.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/10.44 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.12/10.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3380 pages
% 0.12/10.44
% 0.12/10.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/10.44 % User time : 0.064 s
% 0.12/10.44 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.12/10.44 % Total time : 0.080 s
% 0.12/10.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/10.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------