%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT042-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 01:04:07 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 16 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 15 equ; 4 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 : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 25 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_modular_law,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,join(a,c))) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_modular_law) ).
cnf(distributivity,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',distributivity) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_meet,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',commutativity_of_meet) ).
cnf(idempotence_of_meet,axiom,
meet(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',idempotence_of_meet) ).
cnf(absorption2,axiom,
join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption2) ).
cnf(associativity_of_join,axiom,
join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',associativity_of_join) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,join(a,c))) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_modular_law]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
join(a,meet(b,join(a,c))) != meet(join(a,b),join(a,c)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
meet(X1,join(X2,X3)) = join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X1,X3)),
distributivity ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
meet(X1,X1) = X1,
idempotence_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
absorption2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
join(a,join(meet(a,c),meet(b,c))) != join(a,join(meet(a,b),meet(b,c))),
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(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_8]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_9]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_9]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
join(X1,join(meet(X1,X2),X3)) = join(X1,X3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LAT042-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:07:57 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.44 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
% 0.15/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 251360 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.49 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.49 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with pid 251368 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Result found by U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.15/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.49 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.49 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.49
% 0.15/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.15/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Initial clauses : 13
% 0.15/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.15/0.49 % Processed clauses : 88
% 0.15/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 38
% 0.15/0.49 % ...subsumed : 6
% 0.15/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 44
% 0.15/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 6
% 0.15/0.49 % Generated clauses : 627
% 0.15/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 240
% 0.15/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Paramodulations : 627
% 0.15/0.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 695
% 0.15/0.49 % ...of those cached : 502
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 38
% 0.15/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 35
% 0.15/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.15/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 157
% 0.15/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 157
% 0.15/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.15/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 66
% 0.15/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 45
% 0.15/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3516
% 0.15/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.15/0.49
% 0.15/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.49 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.49 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.49 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.15/0.49
% 0.15/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.49 % User time : 0.073 s
% 0.15/0.49 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/0.49 % Total time : 0.085 s
% 0.15/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------