%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWB001+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 02:38:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.31s 0.78s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.31s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 12 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 5 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 9 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 0 ( 0 sgn 0 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(testcase_conclusion_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment,conjecture,
( iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p)
& iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_conclusion_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment) ).
fof(testcase_premise_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment,axiom,
( iext(uri_owl_someValuesFrom,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_d)
& iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p)
& iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction)
& iext(uri_rdfs_subClassOf,uri_ex_c,uri_ex_r) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_premise_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p)
& iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[testcase_conclusion_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p)
| ~ iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p)
| ~ iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
iext(uri_rdf_type,uri_ex_r,uri_owl_Restriction),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[testcase_premise_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
iext(uri_owl_onProperty,uri_ex_r,uri_ex_p),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[testcase_premise_fullish_001_Subgraph_Entailment]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_6])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWB001+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.48 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.48 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.48 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.48 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.48 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:36:05 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.49 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.49 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.56 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
% 0.31/0.78 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.31/0.78 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % sh5l with pid 3543551 completed with status 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.31/0.78 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.31/0.78 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.31/0.78 % Search class: FGHSF-FMLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.31/0.78 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3543558 completed with status 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.31/0.78 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.31/0.78 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.31/0.78 % Search class: FGHSF-FMLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.31/0.78 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.31/0.78 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.78 % Preprocessing time : 0.013 s
% 0.31/0.78
% 0.31/0.78 % Proof found!
% 0.31/0.78 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.31/0.78 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.31/0.78 % Parsed axioms : 560
% 0.31/0.78 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 225
% 0.31/0.78 % Initial clauses : 936
% 0.31/0.78 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 40
% 0.31/0.78 % Initial clauses in saturation : 896
% 0.31/0.78 % Processed clauses : 1320
% 0.31/0.78 % ...of these trivial : 57
% 0.31/0.78 % ...subsumed : 153
% 0.31/0.78 % ...remaining for further processing : 1109
% 0.31/0.78 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.31/0.78 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.31/0.78 % Generated clauses : 3357
% 0.31/0.78 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2648
% 0.31/0.78 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Paramodulations : 3357
% 0.31/0.78 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % NegExts : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Total rewrite steps : 1130
% 0.31/0.78 % ...of those cached : 927
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.78 % Current number of processed clauses : 1102
% 0.31/0.78 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 453
% 0.31/0.78 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Negative unit clauses : 10
% 0.31/0.78 % Non-unit-clauses : 639
% 0.31/0.78 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2224
% 0.31/0.78 % ...number of literals in the above : 7492
% 0.31/0.78 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.31/0.78 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 48473
% 0.31/0.78 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 46639
% 0.31/0.78 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 69
% 0.31/0.78 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6537
% 0.31/0.78 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % BW rewrite match attempts : 125
% 0.31/0.78 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.31/0.78 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.31/0.78 % Termbank termtop insertions : 104443
% 0.31/0.78 % Search garbage collected termcells : 17138
% 0.31/0.78
% 0.31/0.78 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.31/0.78 % User time : 0.108 s
% 0.31/0.78 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.31/0.78 % Total time : 0.125 s
% 0.31/0.78 % Maximum resident set size: 6996 pages
% 0.31/0.78
% 0.31/0.78 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.31/0.78 % User time : 0.131 s
% 0.31/0.78 % System time : 0.024 s
% 0.31/0.78 % Total time : 0.155 s
% 0.31/0.78 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.31/0.78 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------