%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT044-1 : 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 : 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 01:04:07 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 31.04s 5.20s
% Output : CNFRefutation 31.04s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 31 ( 31 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 31 ( 30 equ; 4 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 : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 50 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(absorption2,axiom,
join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption2) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_meet,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',commutativity_of_meet) ).
cnf(orthomodular_law,axiom,
join(X1,meet(complement(X1),join(X1,X2))) = join(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',orthomodular_law) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_join,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',commutativity_of_join) ).
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(prove_weak_orthomodular_law,negated_conjecture,
join(meet(complement(a),join(a,b)),join(complement(b),meet(a,b))) != n1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_weak_orthomodular_law) ).
cnf(compatibility1,axiom,
complement(join(X1,X2)) = meet(complement(X1),complement(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',compatibility1) ).
cnf(invertability3,axiom,
complement(complement(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',invertability3) ).
cnf(compatibility2,axiom,
complement(meet(X1,X2)) = join(complement(X1),complement(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',compatibility2) ).
cnf(invertability1,axiom,
join(complement(X1),X1) = n1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',invertability1) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
absorption2 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_meet ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
join(X1,meet(complement(X1),join(X1,X2))) = join(X1,X2),
orthomodular_law ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_join ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
join(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
join(X1,meet(complement(X1),join(X2,X1))) = join(X2,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
join(X1,join(meet(X2,X1),X3)) = join(X1,X3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
join(meet(X1,X2),meet(X1,complement(meet(X1,X2)))) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
join(meet(complement(a),join(a,b)),join(complement(b),meet(a,b))) != n1,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_weak_orthomodular_law]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
join(X1,meet(X2,complement(meet(X2,X1)))) = join(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,axiom,
complement(join(X1,X2)) = meet(complement(X1),complement(X2)),
compatibility1 ).
cnf(c_0_22,axiom,
complement(complement(X1)) = X1,
invertability3 ).
cnf(c_0_23,axiom,
complement(meet(X1,X2)) = join(complement(X1),complement(X2)),
compatibility2 ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
join(meet(complement(a),join(a,b)),join(complement(b),meet(a,b))) != n1,
c_0_19 ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
join(complement(X1),meet(complement(X2),join(X2,X1))) = complement(meet(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_22]),c_0_23]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,axiom,
join(complement(X1),X1) = n1,
invertability1 ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
join(meet(a,b),join(complement(b),meet(join(a,b),complement(a)))) != n1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_11]),c_0_13]),c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,plain,
join(complement(X1),meet(join(X2,X1),complement(X2))) = complement(meet(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
join(X1,complement(X1)) = n1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]),c_0_11]),c_0_29])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LAT044-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.56 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.56 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.56 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.56 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.56 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.56 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.56 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.56 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:12:52 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.56 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.56 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.61 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.61 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
% 31.04/5.20 % Version: 3.5.1
% 31.04/5.20 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 31.04/5.20 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 997730 completed with status 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 31.04/5.20 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 31.04/5.20 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 31.04/5.20 % No SInE strategy applied
% 31.04/5.20 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 31.04/5.20 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with pid 997739 completed with status 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Result found by G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y
% 31.04/5.20 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 31.04/5.20 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 31.04/5.20 % No SInE strategy applied
% 31.04/5.20 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 31.04/5.20 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 31.04/5.20 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 31.04/5.20
% 31.04/5.20 % Proof found!
% 31.04/5.20 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 31.04/5.20 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 31.04/5.20 % Parsed axioms : 15
% 31.04/5.20 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Initial clauses : 15
% 31.04/5.20 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 31.04/5.20 % Processed clauses : 16215
% 31.04/5.20 % ...of these trivial : 8276
% 31.04/5.20 % ...subsumed : 7348
% 31.04/5.20 % ...remaining for further processing : 591
% 31.04/5.20 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Backward-rewritten : 25
% 31.04/5.20 % Generated clauses : 293483
% 31.04/5.20 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 130845
% 31.04/5.20 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Paramodulations : 293483
% 31.04/5.20 % Factorizations : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % NegExts : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Total rewrite steps : 572443
% 31.04/5.20 % ...of those cached : 481677
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional check models : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 31.04/5.20 % Current number of processed clauses : 566
% 31.04/5.20 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 556
% 31.04/5.20 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 10
% 31.04/5.20 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 114388
% 31.04/5.20 % ...number of literals in the above : 114388
% 31.04/5.20 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Current number of archived clauses : 25
% 31.04/5.20 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 95
% 31.04/5.20 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5959
% 31.04/5.20 % BW rewrite match successes : 370
% 31.04/5.20 % Condensation attempts : 16215
% 31.04/5.20 % Condensation successes : 0
% 31.04/5.20 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3024046
% 31.04/5.20 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 31.04/5.20
% 31.04/5.20 % -------------------------------------------------
% 31.04/5.20 % User time : 4.247 s
% 31.04/5.20 % System time : 0.162 s
% 31.04/5.20 % Total time : 4.409 s
% 31.04/5.20 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 31.04/5.20
% 31.04/5.20 % -------------------------------------------------
% 31.04/5.20 % User time : 21.389 s
% 31.04/5.20 % System time : 0.891 s
% 31.04/5.20 % Total time : 22.280 s
% 31.04/5.20 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 31.04/5.20 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------