↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : LAT253-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n010.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 01:04:33 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 10.83s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :   12
%            Number of leaves      :   13
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   51 (  48 unt;   0 nHn;  14 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   57 (  56 equ;  10 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    6 (   2 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    2 (   0 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    7 (   7 usr;   4 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   72 (  12 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(associativity_of_meet,axiom,
    meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',associativity_of_meet) ).

cnf(idempotence_of_meet,axiom,
    meet(X1,X1) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',idempotence_of_meet) ).

cnf(absorption1,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption1) ).

cnf(complement_meet,axiom,
    meet(X1,complement(X1)) = zero,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-4.ax',complement_meet) ).

cnf(absorption2,axiom,
    join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',absorption2) ).

cnf(commutativity_of_meet,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',commutativity_of_meet) ).

cnf(prove_distributivity_hypothesis,hypothesis,
    meet(b,a) = a,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_distributivity_hypothesis) ).

cnf(commutativity_of_join,axiom,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-0.ax',associativity_of_join) ).

cnf(equation_H76,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,join(X2,X4)))) = meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,join(X4,meet(X1,X2))))),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',equation_H76) ).

cnf(complement_join,axiom,
    join(X1,complement(X1)) = one,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-4.ax',complement_join) ).

cnf(prove_distributivity,negated_conjecture,
    join(complement(b),complement(a)) != complement(a),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_distributivity) ).

cnf(meet_join_complement,axiom,
    ( join(X1,X2) != one
    | meet(X1,X2) != zero
    | complement(X1) = X2 ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LAT001-4.ax',meet_join_complement) ).

cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
    meet(meet(X1,X2),X3) = meet(X1,meet(X2,X3)),
    associativity_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
    meet(X1,X1) = X1,
    idempotence_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X1,X2)) = X1,
    absorption1 ).

cnf(c_0_16,plain,
    meet(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = meet(X1,X2),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
    meet(X1,complement(X1)) = zero,
    complement_meet ).

cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
    join(X1,meet(X1,X2)) = X1,
    absorption2 ).

cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
    meet(X1,X2) = meet(X2,X1),
    commutativity_of_meet ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    meet(b,a) = a,
    prove_distributivity_hypothesis ).

cnf(c_0_21,plain,
    meet(X1,meet(join(X1,X2),X3)) = meet(X1,X3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_22,plain,
    meet(X1,zero) = zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_23,plain,
    join(X1,meet(X2,X1)) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
    meet(a,b) = a,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_25,plain,
    meet(X1,complement(join(X1,X2))) = zero,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_17]),c_0_22]) ).

cnf(c_0_26,axiom,
    join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
    commutativity_of_join ).

cnf(c_0_27,axiom,
    join(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(X1,join(X2,X3)),
    associativity_of_join ).

cnf(c_0_28,hypothesis,
    join(b,a) = b,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).

cnf(c_0_29,plain,
    meet(X1,complement(join(X2,X1))) = zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).

cnf(c_0_30,hypothesis,
    join(b,join(a,X1)) = join(b,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]) ).

cnf(c_0_31,hypothesis,
    meet(join(a,X1),complement(join(b,X1))) = zero,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]) ).

cnf(c_0_32,axiom,
    meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,join(X2,X4)))) = meet(X1,join(X2,meet(X3,join(X4,meet(X1,X2))))),
    equation_H76 ).

cnf(c_0_33,hypothesis,
    meet(complement(b),join(a,meet(b,X1))) = zero,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_18]),c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_34,plain,
    join(X1,zero) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_35,axiom,
    join(X1,complement(X1)) = one,
    complement_join ).

cnf(c_0_36,hypothesis,
    meet(b,join(X1,meet(complement(b),join(X1,a)))) = meet(b,X1),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_32,c_0_33]),c_0_34]) ).

cnf(c_0_37,plain,
    meet(X1,one) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_35]) ).

cnf(c_0_38,hypothesis,
    meet(b,join(X1,meet(complement(b),join(a,X1)))) = meet(b,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_36,c_0_26]) ).

cnf(c_0_39,plain,
    meet(one,X1) = X1,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_37,c_0_19]) ).

cnf(c_0_40,negated_conjecture,
    join(complement(b),complement(a)) != complement(a),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_distributivity]) ).

cnf(c_0_41,plain,
    ( join(X1,X2) != one
    | meet(X1,X2) != zero
    | complement(X1) = X2 ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[meet_join_complement]) ).

cnf(c_0_42,hypothesis,
    meet(a,meet(b,X1)) = meet(a,X1),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_24]) ).

cnf(c_0_43,hypothesis,
    meet(b,join(complement(a),complement(b))) = meet(b,complement(a)),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_38,c_0_35]),c_0_37]) ).

cnf(c_0_44,plain,
    join(one,X1) = one,
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_39]) ).

cnf(c_0_45,negated_conjecture,
    join(complement(b),complement(a)) != complement(a),
    c_0_40 ).

cnf(c_0_46,plain,
    ( join(X1,X2) != one
    | meet(X1,X2) != zero
    | complement(X1) = X2 ),
    c_0_41 ).

cnf(c_0_47,hypothesis,
    meet(a,join(complement(a),complement(b))) = zero,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_42,c_0_43]),c_0_42]),c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_48,plain,
    join(X1,join(complement(X1),X2)) = one,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_35]),c_0_44]) ).

cnf(c_0_49,negated_conjecture,
    join(complement(a),complement(b)) != complement(a),
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_45,c_0_26]) ).

cnf(c_0_50,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_46,c_0_47]),c_0_48])]),c_0_49]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : LAT253-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/10.47  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.18/10.47  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/10.47  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/10.47  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/10.47  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/10.47  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/10.47  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.18/10.47  % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:23:34 UTC 2026
% 0.18/10.47  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.18/10.47  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/10.55  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/10.55  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
% 0.25/10.83  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/10.83  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.83  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3724537 completed with status 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.25/10.83  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.83  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/10.83  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/10.83  % Search class: FHUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/10.83  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_303_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S2S with pid 3724546 completed with status 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Result found by G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.25/10.83  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/10.83  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/10.83  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/10.83  % Search class: FHUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/10.83  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G-E--_303_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Starting G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/10.83  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.25/10.83  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.25/10.83  
% 0.25/10.83  % Proof found!
% 0.25/10.83  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/10.83  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/10.83  % Parsed axioms                        : 14
% 0.25/10.83  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Initial clauses                      : 14
% 0.25/10.83  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 14
% 0.25/10.83  % Processed clauses                    : 835
% 0.25/10.83  % ...of these trivial                  : 477
% 0.25/10.83  % ...subsumed                          : 120
% 0.25/10.83  % ...remaining for further processing  : 238
% 0.25/10.83  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Backward-rewritten                   : 29
% 0.25/10.83  % Generated clauses                    : 14599
% 0.25/10.83  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5339
% 0.25/10.83  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Paramodulations                      : 14596
% 0.25/10.83  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Equation resolutions                 : 3
% 0.25/10.83  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Total rewrite steps                  : 29170
% 0.25/10.83  % ...of those cached                   : 23891
% 0.25/10.83  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.25/10.83  % Current number of processed clauses  : 195
% 0.25/10.83  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 178
% 0.25/10.83  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 0.25/10.83  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.25/10.83  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 9
% 0.25/10.83  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4489
% 0.25/10.83  % ...number of literals in the above   : 4646
% 0.25/10.83  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Current number of archived clauses   : 43
% 0.25/10.83  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 70
% 0.25/10.83  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 70
% 0.25/10.83  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 40
% 0.25/10.83  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.25/10.83  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 514
% 0.25/10.83  % BW rewrite match successes           : 235
% 0.25/10.83  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.25/10.83  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 187244
% 0.25/10.83  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 8
% 0.25/10.83  
% 0.25/10.83  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/10.83  % User time                : 0.240 s
% 0.25/10.83  % System time              : 0.012 s
% 0.25/10.83  % Total time               : 0.252 s
% 0.25/10.83  % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.25/10.83  
% 0.25/10.83  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/10.83  % User time                : 1.193 s
% 0.25/10.83  % System time              : 0.080 s
% 0.25/10.83  % Total time               : 1.273 s
% 0.25/10.83  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/10.83  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------