%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT035-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 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 01:05:24 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 18 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(comp_join_hemimorphism,negated_conjecture,
( f(k(n0)) != n0
| f(k(join(aa,bb))) != join(f(k(aa)),f(k(bb))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',comp_join_hemimorphism) ).
cnf(k_on_bottom,axiom,
k(n0) = n1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_on_bottom) ).
cnf(f_on_top,axiom,
f(n1) = n0,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f_on_top) ).
cnf(f_on_meet,axiom,
f(meet(X1,X2)) = join(f(X1),f(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f_on_meet) ).
cnf(k_on_join,axiom,
k(join(X1,X2)) = meet(k(X1),k(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_on_join) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( f(k(n0)) != n0
| f(k(join(aa,bb))) != join(f(k(aa)),f(k(bb))) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[comp_join_hemimorphism]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( f(k(n0)) != n0
| f(k(join(aa,bb))) != join(f(k(aa)),f(k(bb))) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
k(n0) = n1,
k_on_bottom ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( f(n1) != n0
| join(f(k(aa)),f(k(bb))) != f(k(join(aa,bb))) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
f(n1) = n0,
f_on_top ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
join(f(k(aa)),f(k(bb))) != f(k(join(aa,bb))),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
f(meet(X1,X2)) = join(f(X1),f(X2)),
f_on_meet ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
f(meet(k(aa),k(bb))) != f(k(join(aa,bb))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
k(join(X1,X2)) = meet(k(X1),k(X2)),
k_on_join ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LAT035-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:08:39 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3795489 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FHHPM-FFSS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % partial match(2): FHUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_303_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3795495 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FHHPM-FFSS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % partial match(2): FHUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses : 20
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 20
% 0.14/0.42 % Processed clauses : 16
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.14/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 13
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.14/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 7
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 14
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 269
% 0.14/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------