%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Twee---2.4.2
% Problem  : GRP148-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof

% Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 01:17:21 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.42s
% Output   : Proof 0.21s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13  % Problem  : GRP148-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.14  % Command  : parallel-twee %s --tstp --conditional-encoding if --smaller --drop-non-horn --give-up-on-saturation --explain-encoding --formal-proof
% 0.14/0.36  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.14/0.36  % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 19:49:04 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.21/0.42  Command-line arguments: --flatten
% 0.21/0.42  
% 0.21/0.42  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.42  
% 0.21/0.42  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.42  Axiom 1 (ax_lub1c_1): least_upper_bound(a, c) = c.
% 0.21/0.42  Axiom 2 (ax_lub1c_2): least_upper_bound(b, c) = c.
% 0.21/0.42  Axiom 3 (glb_absorbtion): greatest_lower_bound(X, least_upper_bound(X, Y)) = X.
% 0.21/0.42  Axiom 4 (associativity_of_lub): least_upper_bound(X, least_upper_bound(Y, Z)) = least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(X, Y), Z).
% 0.21/0.42  
% 0.21/0.42  Goal 1 (prove_ax_lub1c): greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), c) = least_upper_bound(a, b).
% 0.21/0.42  Proof:
% 0.21/0.42    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), c)
% 0.21/0.42  = { by axiom 1 (ax_lub1c_1) R->L }
% 0.21/0.42    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), least_upper_bound(a, c))
% 0.21/0.42  = { by axiom 2 (ax_lub1c_2) R->L }
% 0.21/0.42    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), least_upper_bound(a, least_upper_bound(b, c)))
% 0.21/0.42  = { by axiom 1 (ax_lub1c_1) R->L }
% 0.21/0.42    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), least_upper_bound(a, least_upper_bound(b, least_upper_bound(a, c))))
% 0.21/0.42  = { by axiom 4 (associativity_of_lub) }
% 0.21/0.42    greatest_lower_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), least_upper_bound(least_upper_bound(a, b), least_upper_bound(a, c)))
% 0.21/0.42  = { by axiom 3 (glb_absorbtion) }
% 0.21/0.42    least_upper_bound(a, b)
% 0.21/0.42  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.42  
% 0.21/0.42  RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------