%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWB002+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 : 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 02:37:48 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.32s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.32s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 11 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 4 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 5 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(testcase_conclusion_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes,conjecture,
? [X42,X43] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X43,X42)
& iext(uri_ex_p,X42,X43) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_conclusion_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(testcase_premise_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes,axiom,
? [X44] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X44,uri_ex_s)
& iext(uri_ex_p,uri_ex_s,X44) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_premise_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X42,X43] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X43,X42)
& iext(uri_ex_p,X42,X43) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[testcase_conclusion_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X45,X46] :
( ~ iext(uri_ex_q,X46,X45)
| ~ iext(uri_ex_p,X45,X46) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
( iext(uri_ex_q,esk1_0,uri_ex_s)
& iext(uri_ex_p,uri_ex_s,esk1_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[testcase_premise_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ iext(uri_ex_q,X2,X1)
| ~ iext(uri_ex_p,X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
iext(uri_ex_q,esk1_0,uri_ex_s),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
iext(uri_ex_p,uri_ex_s,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWB002+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:36:44 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41 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
% 0.32/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.32/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % new_bool_1 with pid 381131 completed with status 9
% 0.32/0.53 % new_bool_3 with pid 381130 completed with status 9
% 0.32/0.53 % sh5l with pid 381132 completed with status 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.32/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.32/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.32/0.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.32/0.53 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 381159 completed with status 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.32/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.32/0.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.32/0.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.32/0.53 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 0.32/0.53
% 0.32/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.32/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.32/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.32/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 560
% 0.32/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 336
% 0.32/0.53 % Initial clauses : 609
% 0.32/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 609
% 0.32/0.53 % Processed clauses : 968
% 0.32/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 51
% 0.32/0.53 % ...subsumed : 59
% 0.32/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 858
% 0.32/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.32/0.53 % Generated clauses : 1969
% 0.32/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1292
% 0.32/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Paramodulations : 1969
% 0.32/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 741
% 0.32/0.53 % ...of those cached : 509
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 857
% 0.32/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 356
% 0.32/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 501
% 0.32/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 933
% 0.32/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 3812
% 0.32/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.32/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 26924
% 0.32/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 24629
% 0.32/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 59
% 0.32/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3638
% 0.32/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 104
% 0.32/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.32/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.32/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 66550
% 0.32/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11892
% 0.32/0.53
% 0.32/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/0.53 % User time : 0.080 s
% 0.32/0.53 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.32/0.53 % Total time : 0.091 s
% 0.32/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 5928 pages
% 0.32/0.53
% 0.32/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/0.53 % User time : 0.125 s
% 0.32/0.53 % System time : 0.062 s
% 0.32/0.53 % Total time : 0.187 s
% 0.32/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.32/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------