%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWB002+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 02:37:48 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 5.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% 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,
? [X11,X12] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X12,X11)
& iext(uri_ex_p,X11,X12) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_conclusion_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(testcase_premise_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes,axiom,
? [X13] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X13,uri_ex_s)
& iext(uri_ex_p,uri_ex_s,X13) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_premise_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X11,X12] :
( iext(uri_ex_q,X12,X11)
& iext(uri_ex_p,X11,X12) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[testcase_conclusion_fullish_002_Existential_Blank_Nodes]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X14,X15] :
( ~ iext(uri_ex_q,X15,X14)
| ~ iext(uri_ex_p,X14,X15) ),
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
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWB002+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/5.37 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.10/5.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/5.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/5.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/5.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/5.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/5.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/5.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:41:30 UTC 2026
% 0.10/5.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/5.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/5.42 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
% 0.13/5.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/5.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % sh5l with pid 1920333 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.13/5.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/5.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/5.44 % Search class: FHHNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1920336 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/5.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/5.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/5.44 % Search class: FHHNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/5.44
% 0.13/5.44 % Proof found!
% 0.13/5.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/5.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/5.44 % Parsed axioms : 82
% 0.13/5.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 23
% 0.13/5.44 % Initial clauses : 69
% 0.13/5.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 69
% 0.13/5.44 % Processed clauses : 121
% 0.13/5.44 % ...of these trivial : 27
% 0.13/5.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 94
% 0.13/5.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Generated clauses : 140
% 0.13/5.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 110
% 0.13/5.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Paramodulations : 140
% 0.13/5.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Total rewrite steps : 53
% 0.13/5.44 % ...of those cached : 38
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 94
% 0.13/5.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 74
% 0.13/5.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 0.13/5.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 58
% 0.13/5.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 76
% 0.13/5.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 39
% 0.13/5.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 36
% 0.13/5.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 53
% 0.13/5.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 23
% 0.13/5.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/5.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3740
% 0.13/5.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 404
% 0.13/5.44
% 0.13/5.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.44 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/5.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/5.44 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.13/5.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.13/5.44
% 0.13/5.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.44 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/5.44 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/5.44 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/5.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/5.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------