%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWB006+1 : 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 : n026.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 02:37:52 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.17s 10.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 6 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 8 ~; 3 |; 5 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 sgn 4 !; 1 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(testcase_conclusion_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes,conjecture,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,uri_ex_w),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_conclusion_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(owl_eqdis_sameas,axiom,
! [X4,X7] :
( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X4,X7)
<=> X4 = X7 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWB001+0.ax',owl_eqdis_sameas) ).
fof(testcase_premise_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes,axiom,
? [X42] :
( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X42,uri_ex_w)
& iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X42,literal_plain(dat_str_abc))
& iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,literal_plain(dat_str_abc)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_premise_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,uri_ex_w),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[testcase_conclusion_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,uri_ex_w),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X49,X50] :
( ( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X49,X50)
| X49 != X50 )
& ( X49 = X50
| ~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X49,X50) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[owl_eqdis_sameas])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,esk1_0,uri_ex_w)
& iext(uri_owl_sameAs,esk1_0,literal_plain(dat_str_abc))
& iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,literal_plain(dat_str_abc)) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[testcase_premise_fullish_006_Literal_Values_represented_by_URIs_and_Blank_Nodes])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,uri_ex_w),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,esk1_0,uri_ex_w),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,esk1_0,literal_plain(dat_str_abc)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,uri_ex_w),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
uri_ex_w = esk1_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,literal_plain(dat_str_abc)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
literal_plain(dat_str_abc) = esk1_0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_ex_u,esk1_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWB006+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/10.39 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/10.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/10.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/10.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/10.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/10.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/10.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/10.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:40:18 UTC 2026
% 0.17/10.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/10.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/10.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/10.44 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
% 0.17/10.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 1753307 completed with status 9
% 0.17/10.57 % new_bool_3 with pid 1753306 completed with status 9
% 0.17/10.57 % sh5l with pid 1753308 completed with status 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.17/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.17/10.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/10.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FMLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/10.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1753335 completed with status 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.17/10.57 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/10.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FMLM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/10.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/10.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/10.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.013 s
% 0.17/10.57
% 0.17/10.57 % Proof found!
% 0.17/10.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.17/10.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/10.57 % Parsed axioms : 560
% 0.17/10.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 282
% 0.17/10.57 % Initial clauses : 881
% 0.17/10.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 40
% 0.17/10.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 841
% 0.17/10.57 % Processed clauses : 639
% 0.17/10.57 % ...of these trivial : 34
% 0.17/10.57 % ...subsumed : 8
% 0.17/10.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 596
% 0.17/10.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.17/10.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.17/10.57 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.17/10.57 % Generated clauses : 981
% 0.17/10.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 801
% 0.17/10.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Paramodulations : 980
% 0.17/10.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.17/10.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Total rewrite steps : 269
% 0.17/10.57 % ...of those cached : 134
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/10.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 589
% 0.17/10.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 376
% 0.17/10.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.17/10.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 212
% 0.17/10.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1002
% 0.17/10.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 5011
% 0.17/10.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.17/10.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6607
% 0.17/10.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6362
% 0.17/10.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 9
% 0.17/10.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3569
% 0.17/10.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 116
% 0.17/10.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.17/10.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/10.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 83387
% 0.17/10.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 16730
% 0.17/10.57
% 0.17/10.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/10.57 % User time : 0.080 s
% 0.17/10.57 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.17/10.57 % Total time : 0.095 s
% 0.17/10.57 % Maximum resident set size: 7200 pages
% 0.17/10.57
% 0.17/10.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/10.57 % User time : 0.141 s
% 0.17/10.57 % System time : 0.088 s
% 0.17/10.57 % Total time : 0.229 s
% 0.17/10.57 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.17/10.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------